Alexandra

There's one real life Most Unsuitable Adaptation on the boards already: "Bambi" Yes, "Bambi." (I wonder who gets to do Bambi's Mom?) Now, it may prove to be original and wonderful, and one must never prejudge, of course. Anything is possible. So we must all go out to Oregon this March to see James Canfield's full-evening production, to a commissioned score. Since it's Canfield, I doubt this is a children's production. It will be more likely "The Bambi you only thought you knew."

attitude, I think posting just a paragraph is legal. There's a part of the law called "fair use" that allows someone to use up to 250 words of copyrighted material to make a point, like in a review, or preview article, and I think that covers web sites too. Thanks for being cautious!

Wow! This is getting to be like a daily newspaper! Thanks to both Drew and Dale. "Etudes" was quite different in Denmark than in America or London. It really was more than a classroom ballet. If anyone is interested in its origins, there's an article in the DanceView archives you may wish to read: http://www.balletalert.com/magazines/dvarc...ures/etudes.htm

I'm posting the link to a very interesting article by Ismene Brown on Antony Tudor. I'm a great admirer of Brown, but some of the lines in this piece made me recoil -- it's a bit harsh, not only to Tudor, but to Ashton. (It matters that Tudor had one major love of his life as opposed to the "promiscuous" Ashton? Why do we need to consider, or even know, this?) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003319252...8/btizz028.html What was especially interesting to me, as one who only knows Tudor from an American perspective, is the idea that he was considered a coward for leaving England for America during the War. I'd never considered that. I thought it was merely a job opportunity -- and (although this isn't in the article) that Ashton's mad dash for the last ship home, after the premiere of "Devil's Holiday" was as much a "better get home" as a patriotic statement. It is interesting that, except for "Pillar," all of Tudor's masterpieces were made in England. The contemporary criticisms of some of Tudor's American ballets -- "Undertow," "Nimbus" -- is that they're too "working-class English" and not American enough. And I've always wondered if his "choreographer's block" -- the long, long period of time between major ballets, where he worked mostly at Juilliard, or abroad -- as because a reaction to the aesthetic shift, that Brown mentions, from dramatic to abstract ballets. Was this a loss of confidence? What would have happened if Tudor said, "Critics be damned" and kept making his gritty, "working-class English" ballets? Another aspect of Tudor that's always intrigued me is that he has a reputation for being extremely mean -- vicious -- to dancers. This is also mentioned in the article -- Tudor seems quite proud of it. But I've talked to two Swedish dancers who were with the Royal Swedish Ballet when Tudor was director, and many Danish dancers who were either in, or watching, Tudor stage "Lilac Garden" there in the 1970s, all of whom had very positive experiences with him. What mean vicious man? they ask in surprise. In Denmark, he had three of the most insecure, emotionally fragile dancers you could imagine in the same cast, and he was lovely to them. Any comments on this article, on Tudor's place in history, on his ballets?

Thank you both, Michael and Dale, for such detailed reviews. I thoroughly enjoyed them. I hope people will continue reporting throughout the season? Manhattnik, surely you were there for Dvorovenko's triumph!! Any comments?

Thanks, Mel -- both for steering the thread back on course and for that story. It sounds like a very good tactic

Drew, the sad thing is, the editors always laugh at my baseball example, too. They think it's cute. One thing I forgot to mention is the influence on The Numbers. When I began writing in 1979, the big ballet companies would do three different programs in a week, often with cast changes, and we'd review all of them. Sometimes two or three performances would be lumped in one review -- I had the Weekend Wrapup beat for years. Local modern dancers were infuriated by this, saying that their concerts only got one very short review on opening night (the point about covering cast changes never registered). The Post's reasoning was simply that 2200 people were at the ballet performances, and maybe 25-30 at Dance Place -- 100 is sell out for them. I don't think this is just the Post -- I think it's everywhere. Now, The Numbers rule. Not many people read dance stories. Therefore, why should we publish dance stories when everybody will read a story about Survivor? Another idea that's gone is the notion that the newspaper has a responsibility to watch for what is new, or important that's not yet in the public eye. I've argued this one, too. How many people say Martha Graham's early concerts at the Y? What if John Martin hadn't gone to every single one of them and written? This argument might have won the day 30 years ago. Even if the editor hated Martha Graham he would have recognized her importance. Today, who would care? It is extremely depressing. So, please CLICK ON ALL OF THOSE LINKS EVEN IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC REVIEW!!!!! They count internet clicks. If you ever see a little note at the bottom of a review "for more information about Peter Martins, click here" CLICK IT. They don't care a fig about telling you something about Peter Martins. They want to know if you're out there. Please be out there

Thank you, Jeannie!

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!!!!! In every way. It's very dependent on the editor, though. When I started at the Post, the Style editor didn't care at all about dance, but he cared very much that Kriegsman was the first dance critic to win a Pulitzer -- THAT gave them pause. And for about ten years we lived in Pulitzer afterglow. The next editor did care about dance, and her successor actually liked it and attended performances. During that period, I was often given 20 inches, and nearly always 15 -- unheard of these days (think 40 words to an inch). After that editor left, probably merely coincidentally, her successors didn't seem to be dance people -- or arts people. Style cares about politics and pop culture now. If, tomorrow, by accident, an editor was appointed who knew something about dance, it would change. It infuriates me -- and I've used this on various Post editors -- that this would not be tolerated in sports or business. They would not hire a sports editor who didn't know what a home run, or a hat trick was. Or who could let "Babe Ruth was the greatest quarterback to ever play the game" get by. They wouldn't dream of it. Nor would they make a sportswriter write: "The man hit the ball with the stick, then dropped it and began to run around in a diamond pattern, being sure he touched each of the little pillows he found on his way back to where he started." The era of Bob Gottlieb and his kind -- educated, cultured individuals who are interested in, and knowledgeable about, all of the arts is, if not over, sleeping. The only way to fix this is to try to educate the next generation to respect the arts -- then convince them to get a job at a newspaper Drew, I've noticed it a carelessness in magazines, too. Any writer will make mistakes -- a mistake doesn't mean they're stupid, or don't know something. A few years ago one very able critic made a couple of gaffes in print -- saying someone was making a debut in a role who had danced it numerous times, that kind of thing. The person was under a great deal of stress at the time. It shouldn't have happened. But that's why four people read a piece before it gets to layout. Now, for a publication that respects dance, for whom, it might be said, dance is its sole raison d'etre, try DanceView ------------------ Alexandra Site Administrator Editor, Ballet Alert! (a newsletter) and DanceView (a quarterly review of dance). Please subscribe and support this site (sample articles available on line): http://www.balletalert.com/housekeeping/subscribe.htm

Didn't ABT open at City Center last night? Didn't anyone go??????

Leigh, I think legal opinions are a good analogy to criticism (not that I mean to put myself at the level of the Supreme Court ). I agree. A piece of criticism is certainly not a fact, and there are differences in perception among even experienced writers. I was trying to ward off the perception, which I have seen often on the internet, that because two reviewers have reached different conclusions, ergo, one or both has no more weight than any opinion one might overhear coming out of the theater. (And I hasten to say that I have heard many intelligent comments made by people coming out of a theater ) Calliope, I think every critic's background is probably a bit different, but I can't think of a critic who hasn't gone through at least an informal tutoring program. Part of it is just having the chance to talk about ballet with people who love it as much as you do and who know more than you do (which, of course, at the beginning is just about everybody). I would spend hours with my mentors saying, "Is there anyone dancing today who's like Nora Kaye? Tanaquil LeClerq? Andre Eglevsky? Svetlana Beriosova?" Or "Why is that Swan Lake so different from the one that was here last week? I've read in X Y and Z that the black swan pas de deux should be placed after the character dances but this one places it before. Why?" I think it's a bit like getting to be three years old again and asking why the grass is green, but being old enough to remember the answers Jeff (with a side note to Basheva). On editors, I've had a few who needed a bit of training themselves, since they'd never seen a ballet performance. I have two wishes. That I find an editor whose only connotation for the word "Art" is NOT that it is a man's first name, and who doesn't think of "culture" as something that grows in yogurt. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 24, 2000).]

Calliope, I'm using the terms in the way they're used in aesthetics (or at least were when I studied aesthetics ), that opinion is an expression of taste and criticism is an expression of judgment -- a conclusion based on the writer's own aesthetic standards. No one person or body sets the standards that critics judge by, but the community itself works to set one -- in the same way this or that choreographer becomes thought of as a central figure, and thus "the standard." Manhattnik, I do not think it is merely a matter of convincing (hoodwinking, cajoling, etc) an editor into thinking one is a critic. There are certainly instances of that, but responsible newspapers and magazines go much further, like checking with other critics as well as reading a considerable number of clips and probing the writer's background and qualifications. Some magazines (including mine) have a critic write several features first to determine how much background they actually have. Holes in knowledge or blind spots show up very quickly. Many of us think we know a great deal, but are really only knowledgeable about one or two companies, or one particular style. There could be other problems. Several years ago, I had one person who was very eager to write and had an enormous amount of knowledge, but was so vituperative that, as one of my other writers said, "it would be wrong to unleash her on dancers." So every publication has different criteria. (And sometimes it's just a matter of matching sensibilities with a particular publication; there can be incompatibilities.) There are checks in the process as well. I know of instances locally where a critic has been given assignments without (IMO) a thorough background check -- it's amazing how often people have clips that make it seem as though they can write, and it's only when you get their unedited copy that you realize how much editing had gone into making those clips publishable. Aside from quality of writing, there have been people whose ignorance has been exposed in a review, OR there have been many complaints, letters, etc that cannot be traced to friends and relatives of the subject of the review, OR several other critics who also attended the performance will go to the editor and say, no, this is more than a difference of opinion, the person doesn't know enough to write about X. When I started -- I had never been published before I wrote for the Post -- I was in a criticism class with Alan Kriegsman, then the Post's dance critic, who was looking for two stringers. (I took the class because I thought I could learn from him how to analyze performances, not in any hopes or desires of being a critic.) I wrote about 20 reviews of very different performances during the semester and he asked me at the end of it if I would be interested in writing for the Post. For the first two years, he was very careful about where he sent me, and I could tell there were times when I got "promoted" -- to do a premiere, or an unfamiliar company, etc. And I had the privilege of having many "tutorials" by Kriegsman and another Post critic -- they were extremely generous with their knowledge and answered incessant questions. So although there isn't a degree in criticism comparable to one in musicology, there certainly is training. I like Manhattnik's "criticism is an opinion with footnotes." I think that's a major part of it. But I also think it's a matter of mindset. I've "discovered" about a dozen critics, and I've known they were critics from reading their letters or, in several cases simply from conversation, that they had a critical mindset. None of this is meant to say that there aren't incompetent, or dubious, critics, and there are often times when I wonder how that person ever got into print. But then, I have analogous thoughts about artistic directors [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 24, 2000).]

Leigh wrote: "Stuff like that really helps you to understand that what you're reading are opinions in print." I have to take exception to that I used to read posts on alt.arts.ballet that said, basically, "critics are just people who have the power to write what they think, but as soon as I read two reviews that said different things, I caught on that they don't know anything more than anybody else and they're just writing opinions." Well, as a critic, naturally I disagree Not to say there aren't bad critics, stupid critics, critics who are misinformed, critics who don't know anything but are given the chance to write something and do, and probably critics who are the earthly manifestation of evil However, the discipline of criticism requires that you do NOT write an opinion, and this doesn't contradict the fact that out of ten reviews, there may be five, seven, even ten different points of view. When I watch a performance of anything now, I know when I'm watching with my "critic" mindset or my "opinion" mindset. I have to really work to turn off the critic switch and just watch something without judging it or trying to figure out what it is they're doing, or whether the reality matches the intention, or is it structurally sound, dramatically clear, etc. An opinion is a casual observation -- it can be strongly held, it can be off-the-cuff -- but it is merely an expression of taste. In this sense, we all have opinions and they're all equally valid. Criticism is different. It's applyling a set of standards and judgments and reaching a conclusion -- biased and individual, yes, but far more complex than an expression of opinion.

ltraiger, that's a topic all its own (and an interesting one, I think)! I'm going to copy it over and start a new thread, I think. I don't want to discourage dancers/choreographers etc. from speaking out on this one. Calliope, good to see you again. I hope you've noticed that we've added a forum "Dancer to Dancer" in Special Groups. [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited October 23, 2000).]

James, what will you answer? I'm sure you've made your own synthesis of all of this.

A very good moral, Basheva. This relates to one of the other threads that's been going -- I haven't had as much board time as I'd like this week and haven't had a chance to respond -- about changing works of art, and the example of the Mona Lisa came up. I had written something similar in an article two years ago when the Danish balletmasters job was up, again, saying "You don't paint tears on the Mona Lisa because you're tired of her smile." I don't understand the idea that art must be relevant, though. I think WE have to find the relevance -- it's different for everybody. "Swan Lake" may leave you cold for ten years, and then one day, for whatever reason, it strikes a chord and it means something to you. That's what art does. (Nature too )

Thanks, Jack, but I think people are used to the times when my fingers are faster than my brain, since no one's been on a search this past month. The paperback version, at least, is in print, as it's on sale at the Kennedy Center Gift Shop.

Jack, there were a few cast changes that, I gather, were not announced. I could not be sure who that dancer was. But the printed program for "Symphony in 3 Movements" is not completely accurate.

I would ask in return, why does "Swan Lake" have to be relevant to today's society? It's a work of art, not "how to" manual or an old car. What has today's society ever done for "Swan Lake?" [First rule of debating: whoever frames the question usually wins. If you don't agree with the question, rephrase it early in the game. Otherwise, one just ends up getting defensive. "Everybody has a mother who wants them to do things they don't want." "Love still counts." "Well, swans are an endangered species" -- whatever.]

I hope all of you aabers (that's posters to alt.arts.ballet) remember two summers ago when we had an absolutely wonderful time imagining the Least Adaptable Book-to-Ballet Imaginable -- "Moby Dick" -- and, after speculations on whether Moby would be a ballerina role, and how many fish dives there would be in the pas de deux, a brave soul from Somewhere in New England chimed in that her daughter's ballet school had just done "Moby Dick" -- in all seriousness -- last season.

Gee, that's a toughie. He wouldn't HAVE to be an American, would he? I'm thinkin' The Blue Giselle. (And a belated second to the notion of super heroes, who already wear tights. There would be the problem that we're in an era where there seem to be, at least in America, a whole lot more Robins than there are Batmans, though.)

Yes. There was a Tweedledum and Tweedledee pas de trois (with Leslie Collier as "Alice.") It was meant only as an occasional piece, though. Although the Royal does "Tales of Beatrix Potter" as a ballet, on stage, it was done as a children's film and supposedly Ashton said, loudly, specifically, several times, that he did NOT wish it to be seen done on stage.

And Glen Tetley did one ages ago for National Ballet of Canada. We've gotta stay one step ahead of 'em. "Masterpieces of Literature in Digest Form" will be plundered before the decade is out.

Flemming Flindt did "The Three Musketeers" in 1966. It was, as one Danish wag wrote, "Something everyone should see. Once." There are several "Hunchback of Notre Dames" (including the 19th century version known as "Esmeralda.") Roland Petit did one several decades ago, and there are a few Quasimodos swinging on bells around the country as we speak.

Titanic. The Ballet. Welcome, Fran. I hadn't noticed a post from you before, sorry. For a Flindt ballet, "The Lesson" isn't bad