British Critics and Balanchine

[Helene]

I read the following in Emma Manning's review of the Paris Opera Ballet in the February 2004 issue (#71) of Dance Europe:

Last on the bill, Balanchine's Liebeslieder Waltzer, begs to be shorter, not least because a Brahms "love song" waltz is a Brahms "love song" waltz, and even with four emotionally-drenched couples, four vibrant singers and two tireless pianists, this perfumed ballet lost its redolence long before the 55 minutes are up.  We cannot blame the dancers, who change their Karinska-designed costumes twice, squeezed every drop out of every step and pack half of War and Peace in every gesture and who survive the ballet brilliantly, bravely and uncomplainingly.

My opinion that any performance of Liebeslieder Waltzer that is "emotionally-drenched" and "pack half of War and Peace in every gesture" smells more like Eternity than L'Heure Bleue and is missing the point of the ballet. (Could this be a reason that French critics and audiences didn't like it?)

[Edited to attribute this to the correct critic] Zoe Anderson in The Telegraph lambasted Dance Theater of Harlem's Balanchine program, but liked their performance of Return, which I think, having seen it on the same DTH program as Serenade and Apollo, is a fun way to spend 20 minutes, but hardly much to contemplate the moment it ends. In [Edited to attribute this to the correct critic] Ismene Brown's review of Apollo especially, I thought of Balanchine's comment about how he couldn't remain in England, because it's vulgar to be awake. Or perhaps she thinks that the detached "blond god" performances are the only legitimate interpretation of Apollo?

I know this is a very small sample, but these three [Edited] made me realize that I almost always discount the British press take on Balanchine, and I wonder whether British critics, apart from Clement Crisp, "get" Balanchine now any more than they did during NYCB's early tours to London. Or are there critics I should read that I've been missing?

[Edited to attribute the reviews to the correct critics, with my apologies to both]

Edited April 15, 2004 by hockeyfan228

[Alexandra]

Richard Buckle was a famous champion of Balanchine. I'd put John Percival squarely in the "gets it" category. Jane Simpson writes beautifully about Balanchine.

I remember a piece by the late Peter Williams in Dance and Dancers in which he wrote that he wished every young choreographer would study "Liebeslieder Walzer" as a lesson in choreography (I'm assuming he meant the infinite variability on a simple theme.)

There are clueless critics of every clilme, I'm afraid. There are European critics who'll write "where's the content?" The Dance Europe critics I've read generally are of the expressionist rather than formalist camp (I'm sure there are exceptions.) But there are many Americans, too, who I think are equally clueless by missing that there IS content and saying, over and over, "it's just the steps, it's just the steps."

[Helene]

Richard Buckle was a famous champion of Balanchine.  I'd put John Percival squarely in the "gets it" category. Jane Simpson writes beautifully about Balanchine.

I thought Jane Simpson was a poster here; I didn't realize she was a critic, critic too.

[Ari]

I think your generalization about British critics is true, hockeyfan. I approach all British writing about Balanchine with the expectation that the author will not "get it." This is based on years of reading many, many British critics, including good ones.

In addition to the exceptions that you and Alexandra mentioned, A.V. Coton was a critic who made a real effort to understand what Balanchine was doing. I have a collection of his writing that was published in the 1970s (he wrote in the 1950s and 60s), and I was surprised and impressed by his open mind.

An interesting question is, why don't the Brits get it? I know that in the formulative years of the Royal Ballet, there was great loyalty towards the home team on the part of the critical community, and that devotion may have made it hard for them to understand a different approach to style and repertory building. One of Arlene Croce's classic lines is, "Every country recognizes two classical styles -- its own and Russia's." But I would expect truly good critics to be able to put aside their personal tastes and appreciate good art for what it is.

[Leigh Witchel]

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.

The thing is, I've seen the ballet in NYC and I know it can be done and that it's a masterpiece. What do you say to the critic whose only viewing is a relatively flat production?

[Alexandra]

Saying that "the Brits don't get it" is a rather insulting generalization, and since we have people from countries other than America reading this board, including several from Britain, perhaps we'd be more likely to get a response if the question were phrased assuming that people who dismiss or question Balanchine might actually have a point of view worth discussing.

Edited April 14, 2004 by Alexandra

[Ari]

I didn't mean to be insulting to anyone, Alexandra. It's true that many, if not most, critics outside the United States (and some within) don't "get" Balanchine. The reason I single out the British, as opposed to other foreigners, is that British and American culture springs from the same source and usually has more in common than with the culture of other countries. So I expect greater understanding, and am puzzled when it isn't there.

[carbro]

My opinion that any performance of Liebeslieder Waltzer that is "emotionally-drenched" and "pack half of War and Peace in every gesture" smells more like Eternity than L'Heure Bleue and is missing the point of the ballet.  (Could this be a reason that French critics and audiences didn't like it?)

Bingo, Hockeyfan! I think the only way Liebeslieder can fully succeed is when the dancers refrain from selling it. They can not address the audience frontally. These days, most companies (and I know this is a huge generalization) tend to sell. It's a very different state of mind for performers.

Editing to add:

The fact that I believe Ashton can not hold a candle to Balanchine would likely have me driven out of the Royal Opera House, but I grew up on Balanchine, who taught me everything I know. I absorbed his values, which are not Ashton's values. Can I appreciate Ashton's craft? Absolutely. But his best works don't speak simultaneously to my heart and my mind as urgently as Balanchine's best do. And it all has to do with my particular geographical circumstances. I can easily believe that, had I as much early exposure to Ashton as I did to Balanchine, and as little to Balanchine as I did to Ashton, my whole range of tastes would have developed differently.

Edited April 14, 2004 by carbro

[Petra]

Ari, as George Bernard Shaw said "England and America are two countries divided by a single language'

[Manhattnik]

While I missed the review of Liebeslieder which Ari cites, I can certainly imagine the POB dancers not quite knowing what to make of it. It's not surprising that many Brits don't think much of Balanchine's A Midsummer's Night Dream, as, I believe, its only recent performance there was PNB's rather awful production.

I did think the British reviews of DTH, at least the ones I read, were fairly accurate: that this company just isn't as good as it used to be. I also don't think DTH is the best Balanchine standard-bearer, either. Didn't the British critics go wild over the small group Peter Boal took there a year or so ago? I don't remember how much of their rep was Balanchine, though.

Edited April 14, 2004 by Alexandra

[Alexandra]

carbro, I don't think this is a Balanchine/Ashton divide, more (and this is a generalization!) a Balanchine/MacMillan one. The American critics who are sympathetic to Ashton are, generally, less enamored of MacMillan, and the British critics I've read who are dismissive of both Balanchine and Ashton are, generally, very pro-MacMillan (and Forsythe, Kylian, Neumeier, etc.) It may be more of a generational divide -- but I agree that taste is formed by what we see. The American critics who admire Ashton seem to be of the generation that saw the Royal regularly (the '60s and early '70s) and less later.

One leading early Brtish critic (Cyril Beaumont) had a problem with Balanchine's "Apollo" calling it (writing from memory) a "work of youth" and thought it too much of its time (the Age of Sport) mentioning specific movements -- the only one I can remember now is the "swimming" motif. I've always wondered what he saw -- if the early performances emphasized the sporting elements, whereas now they are so subtle I doubt many people would notice them.

Re the comments on Liebeslieder that hockeyfan quoted above, I'd agree with her conclusion (and I didn't see the performance). But on the tape, Violette and Mr. B, Verdy is shown coaching the POB dancers, and the segments shown weren't overly emotional to me -- Leigh, since you saw this in Paris, do you think it was a question of overdoing?

[Leigh Witchel]

No, not at all. They were pallid. They hadn't yet built up the dance pressure in the work. The paradox for them is that in order to get the emotional atmosphere of the ballet right, what they needed to do was push the physicality of it more. It wasn't that they needed to act more or less (they do act more than the New Yorkers, but it's not at all egregious) - Balanchine ballets need a stronger physical attack than is their nature and I think that makes the ballet seem flat more than any choreographic longeurs. I wish I had been able to see them a week after the premiere, they were already better on the second night.

[Helene]

The American critics who are sympathetic to Ashton are, generally, less enamored of MacMillan, and the British critics I've read who are dismissive of both Balanchine and Ashton are, generally, very pro-MacMillan (and Forsythe, Kylian, Neumeier, etc.)

Wow, I don't consider Kylian and Neumeier all that similar, even though to me they co-inhabit the same general universe, but I'd never think of putting Forsythe in the same bucket as the other two, or with McMillan for that matter

[Alexandra]

I'd agree -- there are huge differences among them -- I didn't say they were the same! But if you read critics and make a matrix of what they're generally sympathetic to and what not, the divide is along those lines. There are critics on both sides of the Atlantic that, one senses, only really like the black and white Balanchine ballets and view the Tchaikovsky and romantic or tutu ballets either indulgently or dismissively.

Sometimes, too, people are seeing the same thing but valuing it differently. I think it was John Martin (a late Balanchine convert) who once wrote about Divertimento No. 15, "Balanchine has given us that opening ballet of his again".... Well, if you're looking at ballet through the Diaghilev lens, where you had a divertissement opener, a meaty middle, and either a socko or comic finish to an evening, the comment is understandable. If you're looking at ballet through a Balanchine lens, you'd bristle and say, "They are not all alike!" (and I think you'd be right, but I share the lens).

[Helene]

I'd agree -- there are huge differences among them -- I didn't say they were the same! But if you read critics and make a matrix of what they're generally sympathetic to and what not, the divide is along those lines.

I guess I find that scary, because people are getting paid to say that

There are critics on both sides of the Atlantic that, one senses, only really like the black and white Balanchine ballets and view the Tchaikovsky and romantic or tutu ballets either indulgently or dismissively.

Gosh, and think of what they're missing!

Do all discussion topics eventually lead to the "high" and "low" art discussion?

[Alexandra]

All discussions might well lead here, but I wasn't offering that as a high/low art divide. One might argue it's a good/bad or greater/lesser divide, but I view all the choreographers mentioned so far at the high art end -- that's their intention and those are the rules by which they play. I don't think of them as pop artists, even if I don't always value what they do.

Glinka is a classical musician, even if one might not rank him as high as Tchaikovsky (and there are a ton of people who wouldn't utter the words "tchaikovsky" and "mozart" in the same breath.

[Helene]

All discussions might well lead here, but I wasn't offering that as a high/low art divide.  One might argue it's a good/bad or greater/lesser divide, but I view all the choreographers mentioned so far at the high art end -- that's their intention and those are the rules by which they play.  I don't think of them as pop artists, even if I don't always value what they do.

I was thinking more of Dieter, Mike Meyers' character on Saturday Night Live, who only thought something was Art if it was very serious, very grave, and dressed in black. I think Dieter would like Agon, but would hate Ballet Imperial.

[Alexandra]

Yes! There's definitely a Dieter Party

I think that this is a good example of there are decided differences of opinions and there will be critics whom one reads and agrees with, and those who don't. I also the think the notion of whether one "gets it" or not is always open to debate. 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. As for Liebeslieder (which lucky New Yorkers will get to see the first week of the spring season!), it didn't go over well in San Francisco either, and this may be a ballet that you either love at first sight, or you think is just a lot of silly mooning about. It is possible that, upon further acquaintance, those who hold the latter view will see more in it and come to love it, too. but then again....

[Hans]

What about those who "get it" but still don't like it?

[Alexandra]

Well now, there we have a discussion. One position would be that if you really get it, that means you like it -- or at least admire it -- and if you don't, then you don't really get it. (I don't hold that position, but I think many do, and I'd also argue that both are defensible positions.)

[ismeneb]

Hockeyfan228, I realise it can be a bore to have to read stuff before you comment on it, but do please check your facts. You launched a blanket condemnation of British critics partly resting on my supposed preference for DTH's 'Return' over their Balanchine programme. Well now - I did not review 'Return' at all (I was reviewing Scottish Ballet's fine stab at '4Ts', ironically enough). And my review of DTH was critical of their performance, not of the ballets themselves, which I have expressed my love and awe of at length over the years, no doubt tediously. So you have fabricated my views and rested a hollow argument on it too.

Ari and Alexandra have both reiterated the cliched conception of British critical reaction to Balanchine ballets. I would say that to "get" a choreographer as they describe is no more useful than "getting" a novelist - you blind yourself to love all or hate all. Sensitive critics "get" works of beauty, expressiveness and excitement, whoever they are created by. Balanchine's works have fervent fans among the British critics, not least because we love the man's musical soul. Critics whom I know do not at all divide roughly into Ashton+Balanchine v MacMillan+Kylian, or black-and-white Balanchine v tutu-Balanchine - I simply don't recognise these so-called lines that Alexandra states that she sees. Once in the professional business, we critics must make a hearty effort to dissolve our prejudices and widen our horizons. I dearly wish we saw a broader range of Balanchine over here, 'Davidsbündlertänze' as well as 'Agon'; despite loathing much Kylian, I have liked a couple of them - and it doesn't stop me relishing a Bournonville; I have found that Ashton can be sexier than MacMillan, and MacMillan can be more "English" than Ashton; that Ashton can be eerier than Cunningham, and Cunningham can be more delicate and humane than I would ever have guessed from the widespread American commentaries about his radical abstractness.

Again and again, I have found that tidy certainties are the realm of wishful thinking, that art is exultantly messy and various, and one can surprise oneself over and over. I do ask you not to waste time on us-and-them arguments, and just to consider that sometimes Balanchine might be done justice, and sometimes not.

Ismene Brown

Edited April 15, 2004 by ismeneb

[Mashinka]

I also saw Liebeslieder Waltzer in Paris last December. It was only the second performance of the work I'd seen, the first time being when the Royal Ballet danced it some twenty odd years ago. On that occasion it was generally disliked by both audiences and critics and as far as I can remember has never been revived by the RB. I have to say I thought the Paris Opera Ballet's performances were far superior to what I remember from London but the same restlessness was apparent in both cities during the pause necessitated by the costume changes; hence the charge that the ballet is too long.

A little off topic, I've often wondered if Liebeslieder Waltzer inspired MacMillan in his ballet Mayerling. The scene where a lieder singer comes on and her singing evokes varying emotions among the onlookers always makes me wonder how much he was influenced by Balanchine at that point.

Do British critics dislike Balanchine? Hard to say; I suppose they respond to each performance on the basis of the quality of the dancing on the night, but it's worth remembering that a large number of British critics are now rather young and unless they have actually made the pilgrimage to New York, they won't have seen New York City Ballet as it's so long since the entire company danced in London. With regard to the Dance Theatre of Harlem, I unfortunately had to miss their Balanchine programme though in an earlier programme I saw them dance Serenade and found it a little disappointing, but nowhere near as disappointing as the POB in the same work - their performance on the night I went last December actually bordered on bad, possibly due to mis-casting.

London audiences tend to be divided over Balanchine, though interestingly there is more enthusiasm from those of us that saw some of the NYCB London seasons. Quite a few Royal Ballet dancers have excelled in Balanchine choreography: Darcy Bussell for example seems to have a natural affinity with his work. His detractors here seem to regard him as cold and clinical, which to me betrays their ignorance of the Balanchine oeuvre forgetting that along with the abstract there was also the narrative and the humorous. Perhaps the answer is to bring the company back to London for a lengthy season to enable us all to make more educated judgements.

[Ari]

Hans @ Apr 14 2004, 10:52 PM

What about those who "get it" but still don't like it?

Alexandra @ Apr 14 2004, 11:29 PM

Well now, there we have a discussion. One position would be that if you really get it, that means you like it -- or at least admire it . . .

I think there's a difference between liking and admiring. For instance, I admire the work of Antony Tudor. I recognize his craft, his taste, his poetry. But I don't like his ballets. The prospect of seeing one on a program makes me grateful that the company is presenting quality work, but doesn't lift my heart or make me eager to go. Understanding that difference is what I expect in a professional critic.

Obviously, all critics have likes and dislikes, like all other humans. Unlike other humans, they are paid to analyze and elucidate what they see for the benefit of their readers, and in order to do so they sometimes have to write from the head rather than the heart. If I were a critic and had to review a Tudor ballet, I would try to understand what the choreographer was trying to do and write about how successfully he did it. I wouldn't ignore my emotions -- I don't think a critic should do that -- but I wouldn't let them interfere with my better judgement. And if I saw very little of the Tudor repertory, I would refrain from making statements that implied that I had wide experience with it. This is what most British critics do with Balanchine (yes, Ms. Brown, I stick to my guns) and it bothers me.

[Helene]

Hockeyfan228, I realise it can be a bore to have to read stuff before you comment on it, but do please check your facts. You launched a blanket condemnation of British critics partly resting on my supposed preference for DTH's 'Return' over their Balanchine programme. Well now - I did not review 'Return' at all (I was reviewing Scottish Ballet's fine stab at '4Ts', ironically enough). And my review of DTH was critical of their performance, not of the ballets themselves, which I have expressed my love and awe of at length over the years, no doubt tediously. So you have fabricated my views and rested a hollow argument on it too.

Ms. Brown,

First, I would like to apologize for attributing Zoe Anderson's review of Return to you, which was careless. (I did, however, read this review. Perhaps "ropey" is a common term in criticism.) I will correct this in the original post.

I never said you disliked the Balanchine ballets that Dance Theater of Harlem performed. I questioned whether you "got" them, particularly because of the criticism you gave of Rasta Thomas' performance: "but this sun god was giving off rays of self-love in his quest for wisdom; he's an Apollo for the Oprah age," "I found him unbearably unmusical and undignified," and "his idea of the god Apollo was just one big, attention-seeking baby." I saw his performance in the ballet a few months before you did, and perhaps he's added "smirks" to his portrayal. If you thought he was "unmusical," and I didn't, that isn't the issue. In the full-length Apollo, for the first half of the ballet Apollo is a baby, he is supposed to be undignified -- ex: Balanchine's famous retort to the person who asked him how he could portray Apollo on his knees -- and he loves himself enough to reject two perfectly fine, if not perfect muses, in a rather arrogant and dismissive fashion. Since Balanchine used and saw his dancers so clearly, it is not inconceivable that he used some of the arrogance that Lifar shows in his interviews with Nancy Reynolds in Striking a Balance in the original.

You did not say that Thomas started in character and never grew the portrayal any farther, or that he missed the tone of immaturity and arrogance appropriate for the various stages of the ballet, which would have suggested to me that you "got" the intention. Hence my question.

Helene Kaplan

[Hans]

I agree with Ari regarding admiration. 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