Reviews of ABT Giselle 2015

[Amour]

Here's the "Hitler youth" crack, from 2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/arts/dance/19gala.html?_r=0

Can you say "tasteless"? If he wanted to say something clever about the blond hair, how about saying it looked like he was auditioning for the Royal Danish Ballet. I'm surprised his editor let that one slip through.

That article is vintage (and I think authentic) Macauley. Basically dismissive of the entire performance. I remember the awful, personal things he wrote about Darci Kistler, Nilas Martins, Ashley Bouder and Gillian Murphy's face. I think after the Jenifer Ringer "one sugarplum too many" review he came under heavy scrutiny by the NYT. Also, I'll bet he doesn't want lose his seating privileges at NYCB or ABT. So he's become far more ingratiating as a critic. Personally, I prefer to read Gia Kourlas.

[nanushka]

Personally, I prefer to read Gia Kourlas.

Gia Kourlas is a bit too obviously an access --- well, I won't use the noun. She writes fawningly over certain dancers with whom she seems to have the privilege of rubbing shoulders and is not sufficiently critical for my taste.

[Amour]

Gia Kourlas is a bit too obviously an access --- well, I won't use the noun. She writes fawningly over certain dancers with whom she seems to have the privilege of rubbing shoulders and is not sufficiently critical for my taste.

I guess every one of the NYT dance critics has their problems. My real favorite is Roslyn Sulcas but she's abroad so usually does special pieces on the RB, POB or RD. Macauley certainly has his favorite women -Sara Mearns, Osipova and maybe now Boylston. I can't remember the last time he said anything bad about the first 2. Only a few dancers, like Erica Pereira ("vapid and inconsequential) are on his hate list nowadays.

As for men, his favorites list for men is much broader but Marcelo Gomes, Herman Cornejo and Anthony Huxley (I adore all 3, too) immediately come to mind.

My point is that Macauley has his favorites as you say Gia does (I've never noticed that about Gia, actually). They both occasionally bring dancers with them to the ballet (somehow my seats, especially at NYCB, are always near the NYT seats). But now I find Macauley seems almost afraid to give a bad review while Gia (her gala review being a great example) can still be critical and acerbic.

Frankly, my favorite place to read ballet commentary now is here on BA! People love or don't like things but they're honest. I really think this board is terrific!

[nanushka]

I do agree with much of that, Amour. I think the problem with Gia may come from the conflicting interests and styles of two different publications. She does these long, intimate, chummy interviews with dancers for TONY -- and then can she really turn around and write an objective review of their dancing for NYT (especially if she wants them to keep coming back to her for more interviews)?

I definitely turn here much more for genuine, insightful reviews -- and the multiplicity of voices and opinions really helps. When I read the NYT reviews, it's more about getting a glimpse of what the rest of the (non-obsessed) world is being told to think!

[kfw]

I do agree with much of that, Amour. I think the problem with Gia may come from the conflicting interests and styles of two different publications. She does these long, intimate, chummy interviews with dancers for TONY -- and then can she really turn around and write an objective review of their dancing for NYT (especially if she wants them to keep coming back to her for more interviews)?

I definitely turn here much more for genuine, insightful reviews -- and the multiplicity of voices and opinions really helps. When I read the NYT reviews, it's more about getting a glimpse of what the rest of the (non-obsessed) world is being told to think!

Unfortunately, as was reported her earlier, Kourlas has left Time Out New York, and their "standalone dance section" has been cut from their print edition. I loved the in-depth interviews she used to do.

Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems Macaulay generally gets more space for reviews than other NY Times writers. Whatever his opinions of particular performances, which I usually haven't seen, I find him the most stimulating and thought-provoking of all the Times ballet critics.

[nanushka]

Unfortunately, as was reported her earlier, Kourlas has left Time Out New York, and their "standalone dance section" has been cut from their print edition. I loved the in-depth interviews she used to do.

Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems Macaulay generally gets more space for reviews than other NY Times writers. Whatever his opinions of particular performances, which I usually haven't seen, I find him the most stimulating and thought-provoking of all the Times ballet critics.

I agree with your characterization of his writing on ballet in general. His particular opinions of and ways of describing particular performances often drive me nuts, but he is pretty good at discussing the art in general.

He is the chief dance critic, no? So it makes sense that he'd command more space. And he is often able to frame his articles not just as reviews of single performances but as reflections on broader issues in light of those specific performances. And he often gets to review multiple casts at one time (as in his review of the two Saturday performances and, even more distinctly, his "round-up" reviews of 4-5 casts from the entire run of a production).

[kfw]

It's true, Macaulay definitely has advantages the others don't get.

[abatt]

Personally, I find Macauley's comments on personal appearance distressing and rude. I know that personal appearance is part of the performance, but it seems completely over the top to single out someone's hair color, hair "streaking" (known in the real world as highlights) or eye makeup. If someone has dyed their hair green, okay- fair game because the persoanl appearance has created a distraction from the performance. However, the fact that he persoanlly does not care for a partiuclar hair color shade or highlight job really should not make it into the review. Most recently he has complained that Sara Mearns wore too much eye makeup, while Sterling Hyltin wears too little. I also recall comments in the past about the hair colors of Gillain Murphy, Savanah Lowery and, I believe, Jennie Somogyi. Of course, there was the Hitler Youth comment about Steifel mentioned above. I believe he had also mentioned Darci Kistler's hair coloring a number of years ago. If you want to discuss someone's execution of the choreography or their acting, that's fair game. I don't believe that he should venture into the area of cosmetology, however.

[aurora]

Personally, I find Macauley's comments on personal appearance distressing and rude. I know that personal appearance is part of the performance, but it seems completely over the top to single out someone's hair color, hair "streaking" (known in the real world as highlights) or eye makeup. If someone has dyed their hair green, okay- fair game because the persoanl appearance has created a distraction from the performance. However, the fact that he persoanlly does not care for a partiuclar hair color or highlight job really should not make it into the review. Most recently he has complained that Sara Mearns wore too much eye makeup, while Sterling Hyltin wears too little. I also recall comments in the past about the hair colors of Gillain Murphy, Savanah Lowery and, I believe, Jennie Somogyi. Of course, there was the Hitler Youth comment about Steifel mentioned above. I believe he had also mentioned Darci Kistler's hair coloring a number of years ago. If you want to discuss someone's execution of the choreography or their acting, that's fair game. I don't believe that he should venture into the area of cosmetology, however.

I agree with you completely with the exception of his recent comment on Sterling Hyltin's eye makeup.

Unlike all the others which, even in the overwhelmingly favorable review of Isabella Boylston, came across as snide and mean spirited, I read the comment on Hyltin's eyemakeup as a minor criticism, but not mean or really focusing on personal appearance (for one, it is much less personal than most of the others--even the hair as you change makeup much more frequently than hairdye).

He seemed, if I recall, to be saying that she used her eyes dramatically, but that without emphasis from her makeup, they didn't read well enough in the house. That is something that is easily fixable and is an element of performance. If I read that about me in a review I wouldn't be hurt, I'd think huh, maybe I'll try it and see what people think.

[kfw]

I think saying someone's nose is too big would be mean, because there is nothing the dancer could do about it, or should have to do about it. But if a dancer is actually opting to alter her appearance so that it's non-traditional, I think that's fair game. Others may like it or not find it distracting, but if he does, he should say something. He's not saying he doesn't like something about her, he's saying he doesn't like a choice she's making. And chances are, he's not alone.

ETA: Not to excuse flip and tasteless comments like the Hitler Youth comparison.

[DeCoster]

Personally, I find Macauley's comments on personal appearance distressing and rude. I know that personal appearance is part of the performance, but it seems completely over the top to single out someone's hair color, hair "streaking" (known in the real world as highlights) or eye makeup. If someone has dyed their hair green, okay- fair game because the persoanl appearance has created a distraction from the performance. However, the fact that he persoanlly does not care for a partiuclar hair color shade or highlight job really should not make it into the review. Most recently he has complained that Sara Mearns wore too much eye makeup, while Sterling Hyltin wears too little. I also recall comments in the past about the hair colors of Gillain Murphy, Savanah Lowery and, I believe, Jennie Somogyi. Of course, there was the Hitler Youth comment about Steifel mentioned above. I believe he had also mentioned Darci Kistler's hair coloring a number of years ago. If you want to discuss someone's execution of the choreography or their acting, that's fair game. I don't believe that he should venture into the area of cosmetology, however.

You nailed it abatt. (I was laughing when I read "streaking" in his review. I'm surprised the editors at the NYT couldn't help him define highlights.) I recall him calling out Blaine Hoven for changing his hair color as well. But the worst for me was when he felt the need to mention Danny Ulbricht's small feet. I think it was the last line of the review. It was as though he couldn't critique his dancing, so he went after his foot size. And we can't forget the Jennifer Ringer "eating a sugar plum" line. You'd think he'd learn . . .

[vipa]

You nailed it abatt. (I was laughing when I read "streaking" in his review. I'm surprised the editors at the NYT couldn't help him define highlights.) I recall him calling out Blaine Hoven for changing his hair color as well. But the worst for me was when he felt the need to mention Danny Ulbricht's small feet. I think it was the last line of the review. It was as though he couldn't critique his dancing, so he went after his foot size. And we can't forget the Jennifer Ringer "eating a sugar plum" line. You'd think he'd learn . . .

I so agree with you both. These comments also annoy me because dance criticism is given such a small amount of space that wasting words on nonsense like this does everyone a disservice.

[canbelto]

I actually get more annoyed when he often spends more time on a sort of potted history lesson of the ballet he's reviewing than on the performance.

A good recent example is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/arts/dance/city-ballet-revives-three-pieces-in-repertory.html

I don't mind a brief potted history of "Chaconne" or "La Valse" but a review that barely any time talking about the actual performance annoys me. For instance, this is all he had to say about Sterling Hyltin's debut:

Sterling Hyltin was making her debut as the elegantly passionate, doom-hungry young heroine of “La Valse”; she touched boldly on facets of self-destructive dark sophistication new to her. (It’s to be hoped these will only increase with successive performances.)

[sandik]

I actually get more annoyed when he often spends more time on a sort of potted history lesson of the ballet he's reviewing than on the performance.

I don't know many details about the house style at the NYT, but I do know that, more often than not, critics are supposed to assume that readers do not know much about the background of the field. It may seem ridiculous to us, but we are not necessarily the target audience of the review.

[canbelto]

Well there are critics who manage to work in a brief 411 of the ballet without spending the bulk of the review on a sort of canned history lesson. A good example would be Robert Gottlieb's recent review of La Sylphide:

http://observer.com/2015/05/city-ballet-scores-with-new-la-sylphide/

[kfw]

A canned or potted history would be one more or less copied from someone else. Macaulay's steeped in ballet history, but he only has so much space to spend on it, and as sandik suggests, he's probably supposed to keep in mind his non-balletomane audience. Short background histories for non-specialists aren't the place to be original.

[vagansmom]

At least he's improved since the days when his reviews were more about the music (his background) than the dance. He still lapses into that occasionally and it infuriates me.

[Amour]

At least he's improved since the days when his reviews were more about the music (his background) than the dance. He still lapses into that occasionally and it infuriates me.

I thought he was a dance historian. That's why he always gives so much space to history and so little to critiquing the performance ( as canbelto said). I, too, find that very irritating. I long for the days when Anna Kisselgoff was the NYT critic.

[ABT Fan]

I thought he was a dance historian. That's why he always gives so much space to history and so little to critiquing the performance ( as canbelto said). I, too, find that very irritating. I long for the days when Anna Kisselgoff was the NYT critic.

I get the sense that Macauley is sometimes more concerned with making sure readers know how smart he is (and demonstrating how deep his ballet knowledge is) than writing an actual performance review.

[kfw]

Does he give too much or too little space to ballet history? The poor guy can't win. I enjoy hearing different opinions, but I, at least, do not long for the days of Anna Kisselgoff, although I enjoyed her at the time. I find Macaulay's writing much richer.

[canbelto]

Eh, I think Robert Gottlieb is the must-read dance critic on the NY scene now. His opinions are sharp and not always politically correct but always interesting and he also knows his dance history.

[Amour]

Eh, I think Robert Gottlieb is the must-read dance critic on the NY scene now. His opinions are sharp and not always politically correct but always interesting and he also knows his dance history.

I agree. Macauley,with his surplus of dance history and often misogynist views of female dancers is not my cup of tea. Frankly,I can barely take him seriously. In his review of the last cast Syphide he spoke only of Anthony Huxley (whom I adore and whose mom I'm friends with) but to not even mention Lauren Lovette as the Sylph? C'mon!

[Quiggin]

Macaulay seems to be able to get the Times to give him a lot of room to review serious ballet in these years of declining arts coverage, maybe because he appeals to a broad audience - as Anthony Lane does at the New Yorker. And don't forget the John Rockwell years!

I agree about Gottlieb telling it as is - but he can be as harsh as Macaulay as when he (dares) criticize the divine Mearns in la Valse: "... LeClercqs most famous role. Here we had Mearns at her worst. As I've suggested, shes a flinger not Balanchines cool, restrained girl in white who gradually succumbs to a morbid flirtation with death. Mearns enters already so distraught that she might have come straight to the ballroom from the snake pit."

[Kathleen O'Connell]

I agree about Gottlieb telling it as is - but he can be as harsh as Macaulay as when he (dares) criticize the divine Mearns in la Valse: "... LeClercqs most famous role. Here we had Mearns at her worst. As I've suggested, shes a flinger not Balanchines cool, restrained girl in white who gradually succumbs to a morbid flirtation with death. Mearns enters already so distraught that she might have come straight to the ballroom from the snake pit."

I happen to agree with Gottlieb's assessment of Mearns generally and in La Valse especially, though it certainly could have been -- and should have been -- more tactfully put. Too often Gottlieb sounds as if he's disparaging a dancer's moral fiber rather than offering a critique of the performance he saw them give.

[canbelto]

Well here's Macaulay's writeup of the double-farewell bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/arts/dance/review-paloma-herrera-and-xiomara-reyes-give-farewell-performances-of-giselle.html?ref=dance