bart

Writing negatively about individual dancers

33 posts in this topic

On a thread about Critiquing the Critics," Innopac has posted linked to a Dance Magazine article containing a passage that deserves a thread of its own. The critic in question is Alistair Macaulay of the NY Times, who has been criticized on Ballet Talk by some for being overly critical of certain individual dancers. John Rockwell, Macaulay's predecessor, is mentioned as well.

Why Do They Say What They Say?

Here's what the article says:

“Generally I follow the rule that performers are ill-advised to read about themselves,” says Macaulay. He once wrote a scalding theater review of the actor Stephen Fry that stunned Fry so much that he literally fled the country. “They read reviews at their own peril. I am aware that they frequently do so more intently than anyone else. I am also aware that they are seldom going to read them right. All some of them will ever see is what it says about themselves . . . In my job, I think my best service to dance readers is to speak honestly about what I think and not to put in gentlemanly caveats, such as ‘If this may be said without hurting her feelings,’ as I remember certain British critics writing when I was young.”

For some critics, the issue of dancers’ bodies and looks can feel radioactive, while others consider it fair game. “If you are a performer onstage, putting yourself in the public eye, then it is a legitimate area of comment,” says John Rockwell, who wrote a controversial New York Times piece titled “Today, It’s Dance 10, Looks 3.” The article compared the “hothouse flowers” of Balanchine’s day to some of the current New York City Ballet principal dancers, whom he described as “spectacular dancers without being spectacular beauties.”

But Macaulay claims that he doesn’t place body slamming high on his list of critical talking points. “I learned from Lynn Seymour,” he says, “that a great dancer can transcend what is not considered the ideal body type.”

How far can or should dance critics go in the way of writing negative criticism of individual dancers? And what about "body slamming"?

Do you agree with Macaulay? With Rockwell? Macaulay sounds quite persuasive to me. I wonder, however, whether I myself would actually go very far in that critical direction if I were a published critic. Generally, I like to distinguish between the performance -- which IS fair game -- and the dancer/person. But that's a hard distinction to maintain when you are following a company or a "season."

Share this post


Link to post
Do you agree with Macaulay? It sounds quite persuasive to me. I wonder, however, whether I would actually go very far in that kind of criticism if I were a published writer.

Yes, I agree with him, and think we should be allowed to talk how awful he looked too, though. Somebody did it here once, and got in some trouble. Actually, I don't care that much, critics are going to write what they can get away with.

I liked Rockwell's remark about the 'hothouse flowers in Balanchine's day'. The absence of that means NYCB has lost much of what was its special character. How can you leave things like that out when it's very obvious we're not looking at the same company any more.

And if they don't think the 'beauty part' is that important, then they don't have to pay attention to 'spectacular dancers without being spectacular beauties' line. I think that was appropriate myself, even if you can look at it either way, it is all right to say it. Dancers have long been expected to be beaitiful, and now a lot of them do look quite plain, as do actors.

But Macaulay probably knows not to read this, since sometimes people have described his own appearance at the theater (I've never seen him, and don't care what he looks like, but I dislike other kinds of grand statements he makes, because he, like the rest of us, doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, very often. I mean, as when they want to make the big 'historical statements'. Those are boring. Probably my claiming that POB is the greatest company in the world is equally stupid, though. He probably doesn't care about making a fool of himself any more than I do; I think that's how you learn. In movies, John Simon has been much more brutal about actors' looks for decades than Macaualay ever is.)

Share this post


Link to post

Edwin Denby, who was himself never personally unkind to a dancer -- well, he DID say that Lifar had had the great misfortune to gain weight all over his body except frm the knee down -- which truly WAS a great misfortune, since what Lifar had giong for him was mainly his 17 inch waist and his bendiness, Balanchine thoguht him the only man who was plastically as interesting as a woman -- Denby once wrote that dancers shouldn't read criticism. it was bad for them, like smoking.

A dancer's body is his instrument. If a pianist played an instrument with a faulty action, or an ugly sound, it would be important to mention that problem -- whether or not the pianist managed to overcome it and make the concert interesting anyway.

In ballet, like in any form of theater, what you see is what you get. The way a dancer looks is the most immediate part of the medium.

Sometimes a dancer is transfigured by the act of dancing. This was notably true of Baryshnikov, who had a short stubby body and was not particularly prepossessing -- until he moved. And the transfiguration was awe-inspiring.

Some dancers, like Suzanne Farrell, are beautiful before they do anything. Runway-model beautiful. Others are transfigured by their musicality and grace (Farrell also had those virtues -- AND, I have to give her credit for this, she was willing -- as in Movements for Piano and Orchestra -- to let herself be 'ugly," if it allowed her to do the freaky movement with the right phrasing.

All of this is fair to comment upon. If you DON'T, you're leaving out one of the most important things that the people who were not there would have to know.

If they send an ugly girl out to dance Juliet, she's gonna have to be a hell of a dancer -- and if she succeeds, THAT is a triumph.

Share this post


Link to post

How often is it really the fault of the dancer?

If any negativity is deserved, most of its force should principally be aimed at the company director for casting the dancer.

This can then be followed by an analysis of why and where the dancer failed to meet the expected technical and interpretative demands of the role.

Added 29.3.10:

“If you are a performer onstage, putting yourself in the public eye, then it is a legitimate area of comment,” says John Rockwell..."

Rockwell is right and wrong. The problem for me, is there is as point when leading dancers have little choice in the roles they perform and most want to dance roles as it is their

raison d'etre, I can only reiterate my above first sentence.

How often do critics emphatically say that a certain dancer should not have been cast in a particular role?

Share this post


Link to post
How often do critics emphatically say that a certain dancer should not have been cast in a particular role?
I've seen this, but not all that often. Sometimes a phrase like "X is miscast as .... " seems really intended as a a criticism of the dancer, no matter who or what was responsible for the decision. It's the dancer who gets the black mark as though they somehow didn't rise to the occasion.

My ambivalence about negative criticism of individual dancers -- and especially their bodies -- is aimed more at writers who seem intent on dismissing the dancer, rather than those who try to understand what happened.

Paul's point is very helpful in this regard:

A dancer's body is his instrument. If a pianist played an instrument with a faulty action, or an ugly sound, it would be important to mention that problem -- whether or not the pianist managed to overcome it and make the concert interesting anyway.
As examples of a dancer overcoming a less than perfect body, recently I read a review which mentioned David Hallberg's short torso, but to make a positive point about his long legs and elegant line. Veronika Part's big shoulders were also mentioned (though perhaps the word wasn't "big"). Again, defect (if such it is) was not stressed. Most important I think, the dancer himself/herself was not consigned to the dust bin.

Share this post


Link to post
If they send an ugly girl out to dance Juliet, she's gonna have to be a hell of a dancer -- and if she succeeds, THAT is a triumph.

Much depends, of course, on what you mean by ugly. Dancers tend to be on the pretty side, so uggos trying to horn in on Juliet aren’t a major issue in my experience, but even dancers, male and female, who are downright tright plain (I won’t name names for obvious reasons) can make themselves beautiful through theatrical skill and and wonderful dancing.

Sometimes a dancer is transfigured by the act of dancing.

Quite so.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd just add that Baryshnikov, when I once saw him coming to rehearse at Juilliard in 1978 when he was with NYCB, was anything but unpreprosssing, and was, in fact, quite dazzling, despite being short. But it might be different in photos, 'short' yes, 'stubby', no. It seems I saw a good number of these dancers offstage in the late 70s, early 80s. but some were 'prepossessing', and some weren't. Agree that Farrell was naturally beautiful, and offstage as well, but so was Baryshnikov. Nureyev would rehearse at Juilliard too, and he might have seemed to have 'more presence' because he was often (if not always) the performer offstage and onstage: He seemed to 'hold court' even in the elevator, and this was amusing, but not always necessary, I thought.

For the most part, I agree with leonid, though.

Share this post


Link to post
If they send an ugly girl out to dance Juliet, she's gonna have to be a hell of a dancer -- and if she succeeds, THAT is a triumph.

Much depends, of course, on what you mean by ugly. Dancers tend to be on the pretty side, so uggos trying to horn in on Juliet aren’t a major issue in my experience, but even dancers, male and female, who are downright tright plain (I won’t name names for obvious reasons) can make themselves beautiful through theatrical skill and and wonderful dancing.

Sometimes a dancer is transfigured by the act of dancing.

Quite so.

Absolutely agree.

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than start a new thread entitled "Writing negatively about choreographers - how far should dance critics go," I'll slip this in here: I was gobsmacked to read Robert Johnson in the N.J. Star Ledger saying that

Ratmansky is an idiot to turn this celestial ballerina role into an occasion for bathos and comedy.
.

Idiot? Are insults now acceptable criticism? I've read few of Johnson's reviews previously. Has he been known to pop off like this? I think it's unfortunate and unprofessional.

Share this post


Link to post

The exact situation happens with actors, just as Patrick stated. Howard Stern recently had to face a huge wave of criticism-(not that he cared..he never does, BTW)-after making remarks about Oscar nominated Gabourey Sidibe's weight in his radio show. I honestly don't get it. The girl's weight-(just as, let's say, Lara Flynn Boyle's)-is out there and exposed for everyone to see, and if praising and embracing and admiring words are allowed, why is that the other side can't voice theirs...?

We are certainly getting VERY afraid of the so called "politically correctness" term, and race and weight are right there on the top of the list, but believe me...having to hear only one, "official" side at the end goes beyond boring...it gets VERY dangerous. I know it by experience.

Share this post


Link to post

I may not agree with myself tomorrow morning, but right now I feel it's necessary to say, as a "published critic" myself, that the audience is always being asked to forgive something that is less than ideal, and we'll go along, up to a point. But if the dancer looks wrong for the part, for WHATEVER reason, that dancer is going to have an uphill fight.

Let's turn this away from the feminine mystique for a moment, just for the sake of the argument.

Who of us can imagine Vladimir Malakhov making a success as Spartacus? Yes he's a beautiful dancer, with a fantastic technique, a poetic soul -- but HE LOOKS WRONG FOR THE PART. Nothing about the way his body looks or functions suggests the grit and stamina and heroic strength that are pre-requisites. Carlos Acosta is equipped for that role -- it does not matter that he is -- shall we say African American? His skin-color and racial features in no way disqualify him for the role, given the OTHER qualities he brings to the part.

Baryshnikov famously had to fight to get the role of Albrecht, but the poetic sensitivity and profound gifts he has and always had as an actor made the case, and even in relatively hide-bound Leningrad he made a huge success in the role.

Danilova once said that it took her several performances after a lay-off to regain her stage-presence; and we see it all the time with performers, that when they return from vacation they look out of shape and unfocussed. It would be best for a critic to skip opening night and wait till the previews were over -- but the ballet companies don't have previews, and opening night is NEWSWORTHY. DO they still have it? Is the company headed for the cellar this year? BASEBALL players have to put up with honest criticism -- and baseball players also benefit from an audience that is not so sentimental and is willing to analyze what they saw.

The term "emploi" is used in ballet to define the "kind" of dancer who belongs in what kind of role. No less an artist than Carlo Blasis made it a cardinal point, that a strong, bandy-legged dancer might have great success in character roles but should NEVER be given a role in the "noble" emploi; by contrast, an astute director would never cast Audrey Hepburn as the Wicked Witch of the West, nor Margaret Hamilton as Holly Golightly -- there'd be NO CHANCE of popular success. This is not just obvious -- it is THE LAW. Kirstie Alley will never play Juliet, except maybe off-off Broadway, in a Charles Ludlum-style production.

Speaking of Margaret Hamilton, I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned that David Hallberg has the same profile that she does. He is a noble dancer of the first water, and we all forgive him his nose and his chin -- but who of us has failed to notice this flaw? It doesn't incapacitate him, since he is able -- like Lynn Seymour (whom Macaulay mentioned) by the power of his imagination to project an image so idealized, and with such power, that we only see the aspects of his performance that matters. The clips Hookham has posted on YouTube of his Albrecht with the Bolshoi are transcendently noble and beautiful, in their musicality, style, and deployment of the technique. Beautiful, beyond anything I've myself ever seen in this role, whether live or on screen. If I were writing about him for any of the papers I write for, I would criticize nothing and praise everything.... for his odd face does not matter enough to detract from the glorious rhythmic design he's created in this portrayal.

What matters is what he makes you see.

If with a dancer what you can't help seeing is how much worse they danced than last year, you have to say so -- as gently as possible, unless there's something about the performance that is flat-out offensive. In my case, I can sometimes simply bite my tongue and say nothing -- that is to say, not review the performance at all. No artist likes to be ignored, and you can sometimes express your displeasure by saying nothing. Your editor may let you do that -- but not often. You DO have to say what you think.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's all to easy for critics to be critical in rude and negative ways. When things, including individual dancers, are not good then surely there can be a positive way to point out the issues. Speaking to a dancer some years ago she told a friend and I that the first time she saw her name in a review the comment about her was "X should have been strangled at birth". How offensive and hurtful is that and it surely cannot be a critique.

Share this post


Link to post
What matters is what he makes you see.
Absolutely.

There's a converse, I suppose: performers who, for whatever reason, can not (or ever) make you see what the role seems to demand.

Both can and should be discussed by critics, though I tend to prefer erring on the side of more neutral, descriptive criticism rather than on the use of strong negative adjectives.

And ... what about kfw's question as relates to criticism of a choreographer? (Eg. Ratmansky = "idiot".) I get the point of the review. I dont' know why "idiot" seems to me to be more genteel, more subtle, and therefore more acceptable than "cretin" in French, or "jerk," or "ass," or "insensitive boor." But it does. II suspect that Johnson was reaching for something be believed to be less strong than he really wanted to say.

Share this post


Link to post
cretin" in French, or "jerk," or "ass," or "insensitive boor." But it does. II suspect that Johnson was reaching for something be believed to be less strong than he really wanted to say.

I read "idiot" as "stupid jerk." Others may read it differently, but it's a strong insult in any case. I cannot imagine why the writer or his editor would find it reasonable or acceptable to go ad hominem because of an artistic choice. He could have focused on the choice, even calling it a dumb choice if he felt the need to vent. But to attack Ratmansky personally?

Share this post


Link to post

kfw, I see your point. Many readers, probably most, would read this as you did. Possibly I was thinking about the element of absurdity that "idiot" can convey in English, as in the 1930s movie "Idiot's Delight." Or its affectionate use in statements like: "You're such an idiot. I love you."

But what I forgot is that context counts. A review that tosses around terms like "appalling," "tortured," and styupefyingly bland and unmusical," has -- one can safely say -- taken off the gloves.

Your post led me to think about the original sentence ...

Ratmansky is an idiot to turn this celestial ballerina role into an occasion for bathos and comedy
,,, as compared with a possible alternative ...
Ratmansky made an idiotic choice when he turned this celestial ballerina role into an occasion for bathos and comedy.
But I can't figure out whether the second option is better or not. :unsure:

P.S. Thank goodness that Johnson did not suggest that Ratmansky had been eating too many Sugar Plums. That -- as poor Alastair Macaulay discovered -- might have become a national scandal. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post

But that last example is what occasions some bad criticism. A critic may write, "X seems to be carrying too much weight for this role right now", "Y is out-of-shape in this appearance" and get some flak for feedback, but Macaulay, it seemed, was casting about for a bon mot, crossed a serious line, and made himself into a mauvais sujet. See, nothing sounds worse than a joke that goes wrong!

Share this post


Link to post

The thing about 'idiot' and even 'idiotic choice' is, again, as Ray pointed out in the discussion of Macaulay's talk about Ringer and Angle, it's more something that should be cleaned out by the time it goes print and worldwide. That's a perfect example of BLOGTALK, in which people scream 'idiot', with the usual prosaic expletives, all the time. I see what bart means about context, and surely there can be affectionate use of 'idiot' (I'd have no friends at all if we both didn't call each other 'idiot' all the time!), but I definitely agree with kfw that a serious review should not say 'Ratmansky is an idiot'. Period. And we don't even say that here, do we? And this is closer to a blog than a professional review, I'd think, although fortunately we're forced to adhere to standards of decency which I am grateful for despite my own tendencies.

Anyway, most of the points on the NJ 'idiot talk' have been covered, I just wanted to add that this is an utterly pure example of the blogtalk practices, and that there's another issue: It's probably going to become more prevalent, not less. But I fully sympathize with kfw's lament here. The review sounds immediately just CHEAP because of this.

Share this post


Link to post
I definitely agree with kfw that a serious review should not say 'Ratmansky is an idiot'. Period.

Doesn't it depend on what the reviewer is trying to say?

Dictionary.com defines "idiot" as: "an utterly foolish or senseless person"

What would be the problem if a reviewer actually wanted to say that so-and-so is an utterly foolish person. Seems to me that would be perfectly fine. OTOH, perhaps the reviewer might have wanted to say that so-and-so did an utterly foolish act; in which case, I would think a better choice of words would be that so-and-so did an idiotic thing (as has been suggested above). Seems to me that we all could use a bit of slack when it comes to sometimes not saying exactly what we mean......especially in a case like this since it is so common colloquially to say so-and-so is an idiot when what one really means that the person did something foolish, rather than meaning to imply that so-and-so is consistently and frequently an idiot.

None the less, it does seem to me too that some copy editor should have been more careful to at least ascertain what the reviewer actually meant. (OTOH, we are all familar with situations where deadlines cause certain steps to be omitted or to be given short shrift.)

Share this post


Link to post
What would be the problem if a reviewer actually wanted to say that so-and-so is an utterly foolish person.

For starters, anyone who judges someone else a foolish person for one bad artistic judgment lacks the sense to be given a public forum.

Seems to me that we all could use a bit of slack when it comes to sometimes not saying exactly what we mean......especially in a case like this since it is so common colloquially to say so-and-so is an idiot when what one really means that the person did something foolish, rather than meaning to imply that so-and-so is consistently and frequently an idiot.

I have to disagree. Johnson gets paid to say what he means, and to say it exactly. He doesn't get paid to speak off the cuff. papeetepatrick is exactly right to liken the comment to blog writing, and Lord knows, blogs on the whole haven't exactly raised to tone of public discourse.

Share this post


Link to post

Your post led me to think about the original sentence ...

Ratmansky is an idiot to turn this celestial ballerina role into an occasion for bathos and comedy
,,, as compared with a possible alternative ...
Ratmansky made an idiotic choice when he turned this celestial ballerina role into an occasion for bathos and comedy.
But I can't figure out whether the second option is better or not. :unsure:

{I am editing this post to add that Sandy Mckean posted just as I finished typing this and says something similar, but I will go ahead and post anyway...}

I think the second is better critical manners, but also better critical reporting (Johnson can only draw an inference about Ratmansky as a person and it's hardly a convincing one since a brilliant person can be a lousy choreographer, and, in any case, he's not reviewing the man but his ballet.)

But actually, when I reread the Johnson quote in this thread I found my (additional) problem with "idiot" is that I don't find it that illuminating. "Stupid jerk" actually seems more precisely to express what Johnson is getting at.

I guess I'm still glad he did not say "stupid jerk," but oddly enough I'm not kidding: since a jerk tends to be inconsiderate of people's feelings--at the least through sheer awkwardness (think of the word literally: "to jerk" something) and stupidity connotes dullness in response to something--it's related to the word "stupor"--and I think Johnson is berating Ratmansky for what he feels is a lack of response to the music and an awkward denigration of the ballerina image Johnson hears in the music's grandeur and emotion.

Etymologically "idiot" is related to privacy (or private meanings): that is, it suggests that someone is ignorant of anything outside of his/her own ideas. Johnson may have meant that--but I suspect he meant something closer to unresponsive etc.

Even without the etymologies that's how I hear those different words, but yes--I am decidedly a pedant (which more or less makes me an idiot in exactly the sense described above).

I also want to give all critics a bit of a break. They are writing to deadline and they have the complex task of writing for many audiences at once--and goodness knows what their editors are demanding from them. (Editors may want "blog-like" writing-ugh.) Of course, critics have to know that in this day and age, the blogs and message boards are waiting for THEM and I guess turnabout may be considered fair play!

For myself, I am very curious to see Ratmansky's take on Nutcracker and I tend to think that no choreography has ever been entirely up to Tchaikovsky's music for the adagio of the pas de deux....and if I were to draw a personal inference from the Ratmansky ballets I have seen it would be that he's a very intriguing person indeed--but I will stick with 'he makes intriguing ballets.'

Share this post


Link to post

"Idiot" used idiomatically like this means "the guy offended me."

Share this post


Link to post
What would be the problem if a reviewer actually wanted to say that so-and-so is an utterly foolish person.

For starters, anyone who judges someone else a foolish person for one bad artistic judgment lacks the sense to be given a public forum.

You must not have read my entire post since the criterion of "one bad artistic judgment" is exactly the point I was making.

Share this post


Link to post
You must not have read my entire post since the criterion of "one bad artistic judgment" is exactly the point I was making.

What you wrote is that

perhaps the reviewer might have wanted to say that
(emphasis mine).

In any case, I'm sorry to misunderstand you and I'm glad we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Possibly I was thinking about the element of absurdity that "idiot" can convey in English, as in the 1930s movie "Idiot's Delight." Or its affectionate use in statements like: "You're such an idiot. I love you."

I agree with Bart - the first thing I thought of was "I was such an idiot [to do such and such]" - you sometimes overhear people saying that on the street or in cafes and it has a certain charm to it. It was something Johnson just as well could have said about himself. But the second part of the sentence about turning the part into bathos and comedy is more important than the first - and perhaps should be the subject of controversy. We sometimes get so sensitized to the little transgressions that the real things get a pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Carlos Acosta is equipped for that role -- it does not matter that he is -- shall we say African American?

In Cuba he is a mulato-(racially mixed people of Spanish/African descendants),a TOTALLY respectful term , BTW...(I'm never sure how to call the English equivalent here...it always seems to sound very controversial... :dunno: )

Share this post


Link to post