Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Alexandra

Rest in Peace
  • Posts

    9,306
  • Joined

Everything posted by Alexandra

  1. Thanks, Barb. I totally agree with your summary, quoted below: "Now, I readily agree that a critic can only make such pronouncements if they have seen a great deal of ballet to even begin todescribe these things. But I think the point is to review the performance at hand, and not the glories or failures of other times or cities." I do think the critic should review the performance at hand and not write about someone they're not seeing, but my bias -- and it is definitely a bias -- is to see/review every performance within a context, not just the thing in itself. Problem is, Betsy Bloomer may look just great if you've never seen -- Ulanova, Fracci, etc. (And I hasten to add that I think critics should understand what level of company they're watching. I often wish companies were organized the way college sports were, by size/money: Class A, B, C, etc. Then you could write "Great performance!" of a "Class C" company, and not have Mr. and Mrs. First Time TicketBuyer thinking they were going to get Le Grand Ballet Sublime (my over-the-top name for the world's greatest ballet company, whatever that is). What if no one in Betsy's audience (including Betsy and her coach/director) have seen a great "Giselle?" The critic tries to explain what separates this performance -- be it heaviness in the dancing or heartlessness in the acting -- from a great one. I also agree that if you think the greatest Giselle is Makarova and I think it's Platel -- or Fonteyn, a very different Giselle, we'll be talking at cross-purposes. But if you know that I'm comparing Betsy B to Fonteyn and she wasn't your ideal at all, then you'll at least have an idea of where my mind is -- and whether you agree with it. I guess I also should say that I can't imagine writing, "Little Miss Betsy Bloomer is certainly no Ulanova, but she sure was sprightly in the first act pas de deux," either. It's not fair to compare that way (I think). No one is expecting Ulanova. (But if she IS like Ulanova, or whatever, probably no one minds if the reviewer writes, "Not since Ulanova have we seen such a convincing mad scene," or whatever. I'm not sure if we're in agreement, or disagreeing. Is that still too comparative for you? (If anyone responds, please start another thread, maybe Critics/Comps/Objectivity #3.) Thanks, Alexandra
  2. Barb, very interesting answer. As a critic, I'm constantly comparing. If I see a new production of "Giselle," I'm constantly (almost subconsciously) comparing what I'm seeing to "snapshots" in my mind of past performances. To me, it's of crucial importance whether Ms. "New World's Greatest Giselle" is like Fracci, or Makarova, or something else -- or is, in fact, not a World's Greatest at all, etc. For you, it seems it wouldn't matter -- if I'm reading you right. So could I ask, what would you want from a review of a ballet with a past (Of course, the review of a premiere would be of the thing in itself, primarily, although possibly with "looks like" references to other works)? Would you want someone to review a new production of "Giselle" or a new cast as though no other production or dancers had preceded it? (I'm genuinely curious; I don't mean this as a "challenge.") Alexandra
  3. Wow, I can agree with everybody tonight! Salzberg, I didn't mean that a critic shouldn't realize that the people she writes about are people, but that there should be a balance. I think your lobby introductions were probably a good thing. Too many critics (encouraged by their editors) like to write something witty. A man who was writing for the old Washington Star when I first got into ballet wrote something that taught me not to be clever. He wrote, of a man dancing in Spectre de la Rose: "he looked like a rose and dansed like a pansy." I decided it would be just fine if I didn't show how "clever" I was at someone's expense. (That said, no matter what you write, the dancer will think it's a bad review. Except for Olivier, of course, who's much too intelligent for that! Olivier) My own personal rule is never write anything that would make it impossible for you to ride up in an elevator with the person the next day; in essence, don't write what you couldn't say to someone's face. Samba, I agree that critics have a role in educating an audience; I know that sounds preachy, but I mean it in a good way. It means respecting the intelligence of the audience and not telling them that their brand new company is the equal of POB, or the Kirov, etc. And I think dancers know (and artistic directors should know) when they have not given the performance they wanted to give and have no respect for a critic who writes that they do. I'm not sure that it's always evidence to readers when a critic has been "bought," though (and I don't mean to accuse anyone of taking bribes). I don't think most readers read criticism as closely as we'd like to think they do. At least from reading this group and other message boards, it's more like, "Well, Smedley Smurf certainly agreed with me and said the company had never looked better." Alexandra [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited April 12, 1999).]
  4. I wanted to comment on a couple of points Isemene made. First, I agree wholeheartedly with your point that critics can't be impartial -- and I think a critic's value is often his/her very impartiality, especially if it is openly expressed and based on something substantial. As Leigh says (BAD paraphrase to come), it's our knowledge and opportunity to see a lot of different types of dance that gives us what value we have. But I do think we can be objective, in that our view is an outside one, a view from in front of the footlights. This is the old "Do I tell them that the ballerina sprained her ankle two minutes before the performance?" problem. (Most say no, unless the company has announced it. We want to know such information, though, so we don't make a mean comment about the ballerina's fat left ankle, and we might let the audience know that Miss Hoppledy Hop was not at her best last night.) I do differ on the freebies/socializing aspect, though. I think we think we can be objective, but the whole point of socializing (from Their point of view) is that we get to know each other as people and, once you've looked someone in the eye, it's darned hard to say that his ballets, his choice of dancers, his very view of art, is a carbunkle on the soul of humanity. Worse, when we hear a rumor that so-and-so is quitting because the director slugged her in class, we don't investigate. Instead, we think, "Not Sir Tim. Why he's invited me into his home and his wife makes such great hamburgers. He could never do something so mean." It's not that we want that next free lunch that shuts us up. It's that we have "bought" their public image so thoroughly that we've been corrupted. We are no longer objective. We match what we hear/read against our image of the person, and are quite certain that someone who sends out such lovely Christmas cards must have a good reason to mount a full season of Gerald Arpino revivals. Yes, we do go to a party, write a thank you note, and come home and laugh at the hostess behind her back, but we don't usually write it up in the local newspaper. (Unless you're Sally Quinn in the Washington Post, who has made quite a career of doing just that.) The junkets problem also includes the fact that often the mere coverage of some far away event is already disturbing the balance of nature. "Who would have thought that the desolate Appalachina Ozarks would shelter a first-rate international classical company?" screams a headline in a glossy dance magazine. Who indeed. Reading that, one might think that Critic actually stumbled on this wonderful little jewel box of a company while on his summer Hike the Trail holiday, never dreaming that the company had been pestering him for months with press releases and invitations for an all-expense paid Week in the Ozarks for a festival of Ozarkian dance. (With apologies to any Ozarkian classicists who may read this.) I think that "did I have a good time?" is a fair test, realizing, of course, that a critic's idea of a good time is often different from that of a normal person. I have great sympathy for the person who staggers starry-eyed out of a ballet, having genuinely experienced something wondrous, only to read in the paper the next day that so-and-so was No Nijinsky, that the decor was tacky, that the production was not "authentic," that there was not enough mime, or too much mime. That has nothing to do with most people's experience. And yet, and yet.... Sometimes people may be having a wonderful time at a show, and Critic is dusting off the old tranquilizer dart gun. We are both right. It is wonderful, and it is a Crime against Art. That is far from the "are free tickets unethical" question that started this thread. Sorry. Alexandra
  5. I'm just posting this to start a new thread. I'll have more to say later. Anyone/everyone else, please feel free to jump in. Alexandra
  6. Welcome, Ismene. I shared your feelings at first about critics on the internet, and then thought, what the hell, it should be for everybody. There are several critics here, and there are also quite a few people who aren't critics but who are very knowledgeable and have been watching ballet for years. I'm quite happy with the mix. I thought you raised several very interesting points, but I want to start a new thread because this one has gotten long. I did want to clear up one thing, about "pairs" and "singles," because I didn't understand your description. Here, most critics, at least those who write for the major papers or magazines, are given "a pair," unless tickets are really "tight," in which case one might get "a single." "A pair" means there are two tickets in the envelope, one for the critic and one for his or her invited guest. "A single" means that there is one ticket in the envelope, for the critic. Another reason for critics getting "a pair" besides the tradtion that the theater is a social occasion and people used to come in couples is a practical one, at least for daily writers, namely, getting back to the paper. If you're on a very tight deadline, it's in the theater's interest to get you to the paper as quickly as possible, and whoever has the second ticket, spouse or not, often has a transportation function -- getting the car, or driving the critic to the paper. I've heard that British critics phone in from the phone box right after curtain; I've only had to do that about a half-dozen times and I hated it. The Post's deadlines are 11:00 p.m. (almost impossibe), and then 12:30 a.m., which is a tight squeeze when the curtain falls at 10:45. This may be a whiny, weasly "don't take away my privilege" reason for getting a second ticket, but it's the reality in my case and several others I know. Alexandra PLEASE POST ON SHOULD CRITICS GET COMP TICKETS #2 if you have more comments.
  7. My views will be so predictable that I refuse to post them until at least three other people have answered! Alexandra
  8. Thanks for all your comments. This thread has gotten so long, I'm going to close it and start a new "Favorite Female Dancer" thread. And, for all newcomers, there's a "Favorite Male Dancer" thread too. Alexandra
  9. pdance, you're right. It's not a nice book. She was a very troubled young woman. But it doesn't take away from the fact that she had a very great talent. That kind of a talent is a gift, but it can also be a burden if one doesn't have the right kind of guidance. Gelsey Kirkland seems to have had very little help. I don't look down on her for her problems, although I found the book very distasteful. I look at her as someone with an illness. I think there's a difference between someone with a weakness of character and someone who is ill. All she really wanted was to be a perfect dancer. Any dancer I've ever talked to who had the chance to work with a great artist has found it one of the most exciting and important experiences in their life. So I hope you get your scholarship, and that you don't hold the book against her. (She would have had a lot of help writing the book, you konw, and they would have been anxious to put the most sensational stuff in it.) Alexandra
  10. Estelle, are there any grand old book stores in Paris, perhaps by the university? I ask because the only thing cheap in Copenhagen are old books. There are four antique book shops on the same street, right by the old university, and they have lots of old dance books (many in English), all extraordinarily cheap -- $5, $10. Their new books are extremely expensive. Here, it's often the opposite. A new book will come out in paperback and be quite affordable (unless it's a picture book, or something rather esoteric) while an old book can be $100 or more. I've always imagined that there is a treasure trove in Paris -- or maybe Marseilles -- like a big attic, where there are hundreds of old old books on the Romantic era -- or, better yet, a period we know almost nothing about, the beginning of this century. Alexandra
  11. Ditto on the Koegler. (Ahem, I'm sure they have it at Barnes and Noble. Link in The Shop on this site. I have an older one-volume The Dance Encyclopedia by Anatole Chujoy which is useful -- and has bigger print. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend the 6-volume Oxford International Encyclopedia of Dance that just came out (for $1200). It was in process for nearly 20 years, and, alas, is thus nearly 20 years out of dates. Articles were upgraded along the way, but there are an awful lot of important dancers from the late '70s and '80s, not to mention '90s, that didn't make it in. Also, in the articles I've tested, there are factual errors. Also on my "don't defect without these" list of books is Nancy Reynolds' "Repertory in Review," which is invaluable for 85% of the Balanchine repertory (it, too, stops in the late '70s, which is about when serious dance book publishing stopped in this country.) A word on the Quiz. Some people treat it as a "pop quiz" and answer off the top of their heads, some see it as a research quest. Ed, we have at least ten people every week who answer and have one, two, or even more answers incorrect. They keep taking the Quiz -- and I'm glad to have them. Get your feet wet. I email back before the answers are posted so people know how they did. Also, I would like to say that we don't set out to do trick questions. It's very hard to tell, when you live and breathe this stuff, what's "common knowledge" and what's not. Unless the quizzes are otherwise attributed, I make up the questions and check my answers to be sure I'm right, plus run them by one or two others, when there's time, to see if they can help clarify the phrasing, but I don't sit down and look through Koegler to make up a Quiz. Alexandra [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited April 03, 1999).]
  12. Alexandra

    Gelsey Kirkland

    Just posting to pull this thread back up for all the Kirkland fans.
  13. It continues to fascinate me that so many of you who have only seen a video and read the books are still so interested in a dancer whose career ended far too soon. Thanks, Katharyn, for yet another beautiful and insightful post. There was a Kirkland thread in the Greatest Performances Forum. I'm going to go there now and post something just to put the thread back in action. (And, by the way, please note that if you go to the top of the Board where it says show posts for X days, you can go all the way down to a year; if you do that, you'll get all the threads. On the Greatest Performances Forum, at least, there might be some things of interest that people who weren't here in October or November would like to read. Alexandra
  14. I've held off on answering this one because it's so complicated! (As all the best questions are, Paul.) First, I'd like to say that Jeannie's list looks quite comprehensive, and that I read Leigh's "Looking at Dance" essay, which I think is SUPERB and would recommend that people read it. (URL is in Leigh's post above.) My criteria have evolved over the years, and I don't have a checklist exactly, but if it's a new ballet, I try to understand the choreography -- I do think it's important to try to judge the ballet against the choreographer's intent, not step by step, but in an overall sense. Obvious example, don't criticize an "abstract" ballet for not having a "story," (although it may well have a pretext and/or atmosphere). If I'm seeing a revival, or a production that's not original, I do as much reading as possible (if the work is unfamiliar to me or I need a refresher) and compare what I'm seeing to what I think is the ideal of that work. As for dances, I give points for style as well as technique. Acting (where applicable) and stage presence matter to me as well. Musicality is very important (we could have a nice chat about what that means someday). I watch dance from a comparative perspective, meaning that I can't look at something as distinct and apart from the whole world of dance. I have "measuring sticks" for both ballets and dancers that are too numerous to go into here and that I'm not really conscious of, until I'm tempted to write, "Perhaps the greatest Giselle of our time." What I actually write depends on where I'm writing. Different publications not only have different audiences (and editors) but different lengths as well. When I started at the Post, I had six inches (about 300 words) which is a ridiculous length, but was probably good training. When I left, I usually got 12 to 15 inches (600 to 750 words); pretty good, but still a squeeze when you had to do a weekend's five cast changes. Many people don't realize that the critic doesn't choose the length of the review AND that we don't write our own headlines. The headline can skew a whole review, and this often happens, especially if you're trying to write a "shoe drop" review (He's wonderful, he's marvelous, he's a fine choreographer...but....) The headline writer will find that "but" and lead with it. They also tend to sensationalze. If someone had written that Petipa's "Sleeping Beauty" wasn't quite as dreamlike or romantic as a previous work, the headline would have probably read: "Petipa Hits New Low with Three-Act Snoozer." But I digress. I just finished a Dance Magazine review of 400 words. They consider this a long review. For DanceView, of course, I can ramble on at will and often do. Ballet Review is also extremely generous with space -- and has printed essays about ballet, as well as straight reviews, since its founding. Dance Now prints both short and long pieces. The criteria don't change from publication to publication, but I kept the Post reviews as general as possible. For the other magazines, I can assume not only more knowledge, and more interest, on the part of the readers and write accordingly. That's the short version. Alexandra [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 28, 1999).]
  15. Estelle's point about where critics sit is an excellent one. That's what I'd miss most. Forget the "free" ticket, it's the aisle seat and unobstructed view! Estelle, in DC, at least, the ticket price isn't printed on "comp" (complimentary) tickets, so we don't know, unless we remember to check an ad. I think critics should be aware, though. My impression that if the tickets are VERY expensive, that usually gets noticed. But where you sit really does matter a great deal. For the first ten years I did daily reviewing, the Post had assigned seats (M2 and 4, which is about seven rows back in the Ken Cen, on the right). I had been going to the ballet for 12 years before I realized that ballets looked totally different from the left. Stupid, yes, but what did I know? (Many 19th century ballets seem to have been choreographed to "read" better from the left. In some European theaters, that's where the Royal box was.) If I see several performances of a company during a season when covering for a magazine, I try to sit different places -- though never the fourth tier, I admit, although I like watching from the first or second tier, because you can see the patterns, something you miss from close up. It must be ridiculous to someone whose world exists in the fourth tier to keep reading, "Oh, the exquisite stylistic detail, the glance that passed between them when she noticed the ring," etc. But if that's what you see, and that's integral to the ballet and the dancers performed well, then it must be mentioned. Once John Percival (then of the London Times) watched several performances of the Royal's Swan Lake from tickets he purchased because there were no press nights for that ballet that season. His point (rightly, I think) was that if you were showing the ballet to the public and charging them money, then it should be reviewed, and if he wasn't invited, then he was going to go anyway. It was a great piece. He "exposed" several areas of Covent Garden where your view was blocked by a pillar, or the sightlines were horrible. I think it's a good idea to do that every once in awhile. Jeannie, often only the daily critics get the pair these days, and often we give the extra ticket to a dancer or young critic, if that helps. I absolutely agree with you on junkets. It's wrong. There are instances of a company covering a critic's travel expenses when the company travels to another city so he/she can write a piece about it. Sometimes, when there's a conference (cleverly scheduled to coincide with a new ballet that a company may want lots of coverage for) the company invites a critic to appear on a panel and then can pay the expenses if their newspaper won't. That's considered "ethical," while many newspapers will not allow their people to accept air fare and hotels, considering them gifts. I think it's quite usual for European companies to invite foreign critics to see special programs; don't know about the reverse. The logic is, "We want you to come, we realize you can't blow $3,000.00 to see this. That's okay. We'll pay." If I read a piece that touts a new ballet or new "great" choreographer, or whatever, especially if it's in a big, influential paper, I think I'd like to know that the free ticket was wrapped in an all-expense paid trip to Paris, or Milan, or whatever. Alexandra
  16. Oh, no, Estelle! Anyone who has reservations about Nureyev's "enhancements" is definitely an anti-mutilator, in my book. I think dance historians agree enough on which sections were preserved to at least have a discussion about it, if that makes sense. By that, I mean that in Anglo-American dance history, the "correct" texts for Petipa were always considered to be the Royal Ballet productions, based on a set of notebooks taken from Russia during the Revolution. That, at least, is a starting point. John Wiley's book "The Tchaikovsky Ballets" goes back to earlier sources. I am not advocating trying to recreate something exactly -- the ballet of the dwarfs in "Swan Lake," for example, would probably not go over well today. And there are some changes made early on that were organic to the ballets. (I'm on much firmer turf with Bournonville than Petipa. In Denmark there are dancers who know exactly what was changed when. I'm assuming there are in Russia as well.) Do you think of Bournonville's "La Sylphide" as tampering with a classic? To me, since his version was done four years after the original, it was more transplanting a hit; "La Sylphide" wasn't a classic yet. I would say that's closer to Ashton's version of "Romeo and Juliet." He wasn't changing the Lavrovsky; he was doing something completely different. (Or maybe like today's "Dracula" which has sprung up all over America now. Several productions of the same story, most with different scores and different choreography.) Bournonville kept only the story, and the spirit of the ballet. The steps were quite different. Also, back then, it was the custom for every company to do the hits from Paris. America even had a native production of "Giselle" in the 1850s. I haven't seen Peter Schaufuss's productions of the Tchaikovsky trilogy. But using those scores to do a fantasy on Tchaikovsky's sex life is not anything I'd get on a plane to see. I really don't consider him a choreographer. He's definitely a marketing genius, but not a choreographer. Hope Paris Opera doesn't get that version! Alexandra [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 26, 1999).]
  17. A couple of things, Estelle (and BTW, I didn't mean "sue" for plagiarism, but "sue" for needless or harmful tampering!). I agree that most ballet fans disagree on what is the right version of a classic, but I think there are still some dancers and balletmasters who know. We may not know what "Swan Lake" and "Sleeping Beauty" looked like exactly (although we do have a pretty good idea of "Beauty,") but we do know that this music (with intact choreography) was intended for Aurora's maids of honor and not for the Four Suitors, for example. I don't think there are very many people would would want to try to reconstruct the ballet -- complete with heavy 19th century costumes and chunky (although not always) 19th century bodies, but to be respectful to the choreography. "Swan Lake" has been so thoroughly -- trashed and mutilated; sorry, but I don't know nicer words! -- that it would be hard for many companies to go back to a traditional version now, although the Royal Ballet did keep good versions of both Lake and Beauty that worked, that held the stage, based on the turn-of-the-century Stepanov notation until very recently. It's interesting that there's a move in Russia to try to get back what they've lost while they still can. Soviet Realism did much damage, I think. I finally saw the Bourmeister version this year and, although I understands its historical importance, it really shocked me. To me, it denuded the ballet of any meaning. I think the plots are important, and this version, by removing the mime, reduced the story to a very trite love story: no dynastic pressures on Siegfried, no exposition of the complications of the curse, no oath, no betrayal. Cutting every shred of identifiable Petipa and replacing it with what to my eye was inferior choreography didn't help. (I like some bits of the choreography in Nureyev's Swan Lake, but not his twisting of the plot, making it the attempt of the Tudor to turn Siegfried against women, and the bringing the Swans indoors, white dancing against a white background, is, to me, simply perverse.) I think when the few classics we have are well danced and well directed, audiences do still enjoy them, that the way to renew a classic is through new dancers (well coached!). I don't know what my family would have thought of Marriage of Figaro (or whether they would have known about Beaumarchais), but I think the principle is that a genius can get away with anything; that's why he's a genius. I hadn't thought about the role of the title in the Ek "Giselle" (which I've only seen on video and so I hesitate to try to comment on specifically; it might "feel" very different in a theater). That's an interesting point. I think the music would still be a barrier. That's the difficulty of transplanting classics to another place and time. (I admire Chauvire from photos and reputation; I never saw her dance. There are some productions dancers, even great dancers, recommend that I can't stand. Think of Nureyev's productions! But I wonder if she thought it was good, or that she would like to have danced the role? I think there's a big difference.) Perhaps it matters what one thinks of the tradtional "Giselle" (or whatever) and how many memories you have of it, how annoyed you get when you see it "ripped off" or changed or this or that detail now gone so that a whole scene doesn't make sense any more. alexandra
  18. Now, now. The New York Post has a distinguished critic as well. Kevin, this has happened in most major cities in the United States. It's part of this whole globalization-downsizing-efficiency movement. In the 1960s, I think New York had six or seven daily newspapers. But, then it was about news; now it's about advertsing. Which brings me back to Our Topic. The real pressure on critics is through their editors and it's from advertisers. This I know from personal experience, because DanceView, when it was Washington DanceView, took ads. My absolute favorite was a young man who called, on behalf of his company and said, "We'd like to purchase a cover and we think that would tie in nicely with a review of our fall program." Most of the others were more subtle, but the message was the same. It got to the point that if they subscribed they expected you to review them and hinted for features. So we don't take advertising now. But I'm poor enough to be able to afford to do that. Alexandra
  19. I know very little about architecture. I definitely agree with what you wrote about 18th century neoclassicism being inspired by the discovery of the ruins. I took a course in classicism/romantcism in grad school, and one of the other students did her paper on postmodernism in architecture and classified it as romanticism. (Modernism, I learned, is now seen by many -- most? -- scholars as another strain of romanticism, romanticism reinvented, if you will, rather than a separate and distinct classification.) Anyway, I remember her presentation well, although I can't remember any of the names -- this is two generations after Philip Johnson, though -- and the hallmark was "whimsy" which seems very unclassical to me. Classical columns stuck on the front of a California ranch house, with a Victorian cupola (in hot pink) round the back. That kind of thing. We actually discussed dance compared to this, because postmodernism in dance usually refers to the stuff that's not ballet that happened after they realized they couldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, relate it to what Martha and Doris were doing. How's that for a definition? The Judson Church movement, the Yvonne Rainer No Manifesto movement. I guess "whimsy" would be one word for it. I do not think we're in a neoclassical movement in dance, especially in ballet -- there's no sense of revival. We're in a post- period, where you hang on by your fingernails and redo what's been done for the past 30 years. In ballet, for the last two centuries the revival has started in about xx04, 05, 06 -- I honestly think that there are signs of one in pop culture. All these TV shows about Merlin and Joan of Arc, please. They're reaching for new heroes and going back in history to find them. Alexandra
  20. I agree they could easily coexist. Especially since the Balanchine is not really the second act excerpt that ballet companies used to do, but a compact, complete ballet. (It feels like you're getting the whole "story.") Who knows? Maybe it will be used in the seasons when the four-act "Swan Lake" is resting. I was remembering that Tudor's "Romeo and Juliet" (One act. One long, long act) disappeared when ABT got a three-act version. Now, Tudor's "Romeo and Juliet" had never been popular -- beloved perhaps, but not popular. To pull this thread back to Pamela's original question, for those NYCBers who have seen other "Sleeping Beauties," how does that work as a production of a classic for you? Alexandra
  21. I've pulled something out of what Paul W wrote on the Critics/Comp Tickets thread that I thought might provoke an interesting discussion. Paul wrote: "I've been trying to understand exactly what guidelines critics follow (if any) in writing a review. It's not obvious." Paul, I'm not sure whether you mean ethical guidelines, or what criteria (re judgment) critics use when writing a review. Could you clarify? Either would make a good discussion -- perhaps those who aren't critics could go first this time. Is it obvious to you what guidelines critics follow? What guidelines do you think they should follow? Alexandra
  22. Paul, I don't think there's any way that the critic can avoid contact with the company or the performing arts venue. That's why those organizations have press liaisons. There's just too much on-the-spot information that needs to be known, especially cast changes, dancer identifications, notes on music, etc. The Post had a same night deadline; had to write a review in under an hour. I don't think there's any way to evaluate critics. We're all biased. We all think we're trying to be fair. What I do try to do as a critic is to let my biases show. You'll know, reading one of my reviews, that I'm going to not take kindly to an updated Giselle where Myrtha is a biker's moll. And you'll be able to read that review with that knowledge. I think people evaluate what critics write all the time, but it's usually (in my experience, from letters), "You must have attended a different performance than my wife and I last Wednesday night." Well, short of a tear in the space/time continuum, it's unlikely. We saw the same things. We just saw them differently. Paul, if you'd like to get together a bunch of "volunteer ballet lovers" to publish a Review of the Critics, I wish you well, and I'll read it, but I can tell you from experience that you won't make any money on it! Alexandra
  23. Betcha it's curtains for the Balanchine one-act "Swan Lake," unless the NEW "Swan Lake" is a flop. Betcha. If it's like it was in Denmark (rumor has it), the second act in Martins' production is quite like Balanchine's. Alexandra
  24. I can understand Jeannie's concern, but I basically agree with Leigh's response. The presenting organizations give out press tickets so they can get coverage. It's like sports, or conventions. The RNC and the DNC give out press credentials to all those reporters at the national conventions, too. Book reviewers are sent free copies of books with the expectation that they'll write a review. Of course, the hope is that it will be a good review, but they don't expect the book back if it's a bad one. If the critic has not solicited the free copy, he/she is not obligated to review it. (I just received three technique-y type of books from a publisher, even though I had told him explicitly that DanceView only reviewed books "you can actually read," as I put it. I'm not going to have them reviewed.) I was a stringer for the Washington Post for 15 years, and I would guess that at least 50 percent of the performances I covered I would not have attended had I not been asked to write a review. The practical result of having newspapers or magazines pay would be that very few things would be covered. The pairs is just custom and usage, I suppose, dating from the "good old days" when all critics were men, most had wives, and society functioned more in couples -- military wives, doctors' wives, professor's wives, critics' wives. I can honestly say that the fact that the tickets were "free" has never influenced me. I never felt obligated to write a good review because I was given a ticket. I've also never been cold shouldered or "punished" in any way by a presenter because of a negative review I've written. That's considered unprofessional behavior. (And I wrote a lot of negative reviews.) I have been questioned by a performer or choreographer, but that's something you just have to live with. Sometimes I've wished DanceView could afford to buy the tickets, but only because then I could go to all the performances that I need, or think I need, to see. (Because of cast changes, comping dance performances is much more expensive than comping plays, and, as Leigh noted, with the number of critics wanting tickets, presenters have to ration.) When they can, presenters often give tickets to critics who aren't reviewing a particular performance because they know that we need to see as much as possible. (It's nearly impossible to review the second and third casts of something when you haven't seen the first cast.) I do think that what can influence a critic is getting to know the artists, socializing with artists. It's one thing to write a "Gosh, this is the worst thing I've ever seen" review, and quite another to write it and go to lunch with Maestro the morning after. At some papers (too few) the features writers, the ones who get the free lunch, are different from the critics, and I think this is wise. It is often impossible especially in smaller cities. The pressures on a critic in a one-newspaper, one-company small city must be excruciating. I've been lucky that Washington has no resident company (with apologies to the Washingotn Ballet, which is a very small troupe that doesn't have as great a presence here as the Kennedy Center imports). We don't have to worry about running into the artists we write about in the grocery store. I hope some people who aren't critics will answer this question. I'd be very interested to know the general perception. Alexandra [This message has been edited by alexandra (edited March 24, 1999).]
  25. I think there's a lot of sense in Leigh's answer. I'm a traditionalist (surprise!) and would like to see "Sleeping Beauty" as it was intended to be seen -- or as close as is possible. I'd like to see the 19th century ballets treated with as much respect as, say, "Agon." Wait 'til they start toying -- seriously toying, as opposed to a little change here, and a another there, Leigh! Then see how moderate you are! And so my opinion on this or that "updating" depends pretty much on my feelings for the orginal. (Do what you will to Coppelia or Don Q. Touch a hair on the head of Giselle or Beauty, and I'll squawk.) Part of this attitude was absorbed at my dining room table. I was brought up to loathe, detest and despise movies based on books that changed the plot. The party line in our family was, "If that man wants to tell a story, then he should tell his own story, not borrow someone else's title, character names and basic plot and then ruin it." I think that works for dance, too. My objection to Ek-y or Neumeier-y "rethinks" is that, to me, they're the kind of thing any self-respecting balletomane can think of him or herself over coffee after a performance. I don't need to see it. Alexandra protectress of choreographers too dead to sue
×
×
  • Create New...