Alexandra

A word on the references to the Royal Ballet that I hope will be helpful. The Royal has long been on the NYTimes watch, starting with John Martin, partly because it was considered the major classical ballet company in the West and partly because its productions of the Petipa classics were the most authentic, based, as they were, on the Stepanov notations. Every new production of "Sleeping Beauty" was followed with intense interest -- since the Royal had staked its reputation on being the conservator of the classics, it was held up to scrutiny, and often also as a model. During the Ballet Boom, in New York, the Royal was as important to balletgoers as was NYCBallet, and many of the Times readers would be from that time. And when the Royal fell on troubled times, the NYTimes kept watch because it's an international paper, and the Royal is an international company. So I think Macaulay (as had Kisselgoff before him, and Barnes, and Martin) refers to the Royal in that way, not as his favorite little home company, any more than he quotes Shakespeare because he's his hometown poet. On the issue of what is, or should be, the Times standard of writing, I (not surprisingly) hope that it, and the Journal and the New Yorker, keep trudging along, beknightedly or not, in assuming a large part of its readership wants writing, and thought, of the caliber they're now getting. I thought of this reading some of Clive Barnes reviews this spring. Barnes is an excellent writer, often very witty, and now is squeezed into tiny little reviews at the NY Post. There are times when he can do wonders with the four or five sentences he's allotted, and he will write one-sentence descriptions of dancers that are absolutely poetic. If there's no depth, it's not because he can't do it, but because he doesn't have the space to do it -- and the readership wouldn't be particularly interested. It's as though a great chef were working at a diner, flipping burgers rather than making Beef Wellington, or doing something fantastic with sole. The burgers will have a special sauce and be served with flair, but ... there have to be SOME places left where one can get something that isn't a burger! I'm late on this point, but wanted to say that Wolcott has a brief biography (including family ties ) on his About page, so he's covered. I hope he keeps writing about ballet. Maybe he'll start a trend!

Wolcott was referring to a review in which Macauley wrote that he cried twice, and explained why. Is this something a critic shouldn't do? Or just something that a reader either likes, dislikes, or shrugs off? On "dismissing some, canonizing others" -- there's the nub of it Whether or not I agree or disagree with a writer, I think s/he has the right to do this. I think one can do that -- be "fair and balanced" in the sense of not omitting a reference to someone who is Not Favored, say, and certainly writing that the Unfavored did well, or the Favorite had a bad night, when that happens -- while still being passionate. Am I being overly optimistic?

Yes! I'm sure it's good for business. And good that people are reading it. In the best of all possible worlds, it will make them read Macauley (and Wolcott) and make up their own minds!! Dale makes a good point, too. Are blogs supposed to be "fair and balanced"? I guess not, because there are no rules for blogs. They are supposed to be "a good read" -- entertaining, and that often means something outrageous, or making a point because of the effect a point will have -- and passionate arguments have always been good for ballet. I'll raise Leigh's questions again, so they don't get lost: Leigh wrote:

Amour, I disagree. Many of the comments in this discussion have been catty and snide, and not consistent with the history or culture of this forum. Several participants are more recent members, which is one of the reasons I stepped in. This isn't what we do here. The many anti-British comments especially have made me wince. We have many British readers and I don't know what they must be thinking -- but I do understand why they don't often post here. Critics are supposed to write strongly. Namby pamby feel-good comments aren't good criticism. I see nothing wrong with writing about the way a dancer uses his or her face or feet. It's a specific comment, not an insult. Saying someone is plug ugly or has bugs for brains is quite different. That WOULD be an attack. [editing to add: Not saying that I agree or disagree with the comment, just that what Macauley wrote wouldn't raise an editor's eyebrow.] In the best of all possible worlds, we'd have a number of critics writing from a strong knowledge base, and writing opinionated criticism. (As they do in London! We're poor by comparison, not for lack of talent, but for lack of outlets.) And then if there are critics whom one simply cannot stand, one doesn't read them. Bart, this is it, exactly. It should be the standard for critics. Editing again to add that we've gotten away from the Wolcott article. Dale made a comment about 20 comments ago that no one seems to have noticed: "And it brings up how journalistic ethics plays into blogs. If that was in a newspaper or magazine, it might be required for Wolcott to say that he is married to dance critic who holds differing views from Macaulay. Maybe in a blog it is expected the readers to know more about Wolcott's life and therefore he doesn't need the disclaimer." Should Wolcott have mentioned this? Does not doing so raise a question of motivation? Or doesn't it matter?

I've tried to stay out of this one, but it's becoming disturbing to me and I have to put in a word. Some of these comments are so petty that they're out of character for this board. The idea that a serious critic would have a grudge against a dancer who left one company for another is highly unlikely. I'd echo much of what Bart said above, and add that "Critical objectivity" is a term of art. It does NOT mean that a critic doesn't have personal biases - that's "taste." It means that in writing serious criticism one executes "judgment" -- that one writes in an objective rather than personal way, which is to "pull back," look at the object on view in long shot, as it were, and place the performance within a context. That's writing with critical objectivity. Subjective, or personal, writing is, "I went last night and I just loved Soandso as the Prince." Nothing wrong with the latter, except when it's in a newspaper In Macauley's case, I'd also say that I doubt he's trying to impress people or show off what he knows, but that he (perhaps wrongly) assumes that he's writing to peers -- to people who are knowledgeable and sophisticated, who share his love of ballet, and understand at least something of its history and current aesthetic issues. This goes against the grain of current newspaper writing -- many papers want snazzy breezy pieces that, they fondly believe, everyone who picks up the paper will read. I was very happy that the Times chose a critic instead. That's what serious critics, like Macauley, or Robert Greskovic, or Joan Acocella, or Tobi Tobias, among others, do. (He writes for the same audience I assumed was out there, and why I started this forum -- so that likeminded souls could have serious discussions of ballet.) We've had discussions about space before -- you can't put everything in a review. It's not possible. No matter how much space you have, the history of "Giselle," say, and every dancer who's danced the role just won't fit I think it's time to post again the links to Joan Acocella's pieces on criticism. I'll come back and add them. What's Good About Bad Reviews What critics do

Unfortunately, I think this is where ballet is today, especially at competitions. It's not in all companies yet, but it's getting there. We could picket.....

Best guess is that the "guests" are a search engine. The site statistics count each IP number as a distinct "guest" and I've noticed that "Google" or some other engine will go through the site, clicking on each new-to-them-post and being listed as guests. I noticed the same thing Saturday night -- no one on the board, but 250 "guests," and it took me awhile to figure it out.

Did anyone go?

Exactly! Hello, eabock! Good to read you again. Don't be a stranger Ah, Anton Walbrook. I think he became the model, rather than Diaghilev.

I forgot to address atm's original point I do think one can argue that a performance that took place nearly 60 years ago might not be relevant to most of the people reading that piece, although it certainly places the writer and shows his aesthetic. But I do think it's relevant to mention that PRODUCTION -- not the designs, which, although very admired then might seem fussy now -- but the text. It's long been a measuring stick in the West.

And why didn't DeValois "surrender to the pressure"? To prove a point? Or because she, rather than an impresario, knew what that role needed. Shearer was a movie star and a lyrical, light dancer (and certainly not the only dancer who believed she was undervalued!). Fonteyn was not known in New York to the general public -- which doesn't have any bearing on her merits as a dancer. "Sleeping Beauty," by Royal Ballet standards, meant a classical ballerina, and that's why Fonteyn was cast. From what I've read, the reaction was that after they saw Fonteyn they understood why the decision was made. All this Royal bashing! It is true that many people saw the Royal and felt it was a different level of dancing than what was then available in New York. There were also many people then, as now, I'm sure, who thought that "Sleeping Beauty" was a children's fairy tale and didn't see what all the fuss was about. But the Royal's "Sleeping Beauty" was a huge hit, and when ABT mounted "Swan Lake" about 15 years later, Chase cited the need to "compete."

And think what a dramaturge could do with "Agon" or "Concerto Barocco."

The Bournonville we see today has been changed, but certainly not through a classical filter. Hans Beck didn't make substantial changes. He worked wiith older dancers, including Juliette Price, and he had Mrs. Bournonville's imprimatur. What has changed drastically is the sense of line and the size of the bodies. Line changed from curly, curvy Romantic, where everything tilts to the side (photos make the dancers look as though they've been caught in a breeze) and is NOT stretched when Volkova came to the company in the 1950s, and now the company says it won't take men under 5 foot 10 (I don't know the height requirement for women) where the best dancers in Bournonville's day were much shorter.

Oh, missvjc, please please please start one!!! I'll bet you'd have an audience.

I never saw a Sleepwalker carry the Poet on pointe, although I've read the accounts (and trust atm and rg's rebuttal!) but I have seen the Sleepwalker carry the Poet around the stage -- none of this stand at the back two inches from the tower and stagger backwards. The longer walk was the way it was staged in Copenhagen, and I saw a revivall in 1992 that kept this. Also, press reports of that production, at home and on tour, make a big deal of it. The Sleepwalker comes out, and when she gets to the body of the Poet, she senses him, and bends backwards (as she does n the ABT and NYCB productions I've seen) BUT instead of stepping over him, she stands still, and it's clear she won't take a step without him. Then the divert dancers come, pick him up and place her in his arms. She takes a few steps forward, then takes a stage right U-turn (towards the dancers and guests, then to the back of the stasge, then across the back and into the tower. Margrethe Schanne was the first Sleepwalker in Copenhagen, and she's tiny -- probably about 5 feet, 5'1" tops, and bird-boned, and she was very proud of this. (Kronstam was the poet, 6'1.) I do have friends who claim they saw Danilova continue to carry the Poet across the bridge -- but they always say it with a smile.

Freddie Franklin was in DC this past week at a film premiere and I asked him what he was doing next. He said he would do the Friar (Romeo and Juliet) and the Tutor (Swan Lake) with ABT at the Met.

I received this press release tonight: Michael Smuin October 13, 1938 – April 23, 2007 Internationally Acclaimed Dancer & Choreographer Passes 23 April 2007 – San Francisco, CA: Michael Smuin – founder and Artistic Director of the Internationally acclaimed Smuin Ballet ( www.smuinballet.org ) passed away this morning in San Francisco after collapsing in the midst of a rehearsal for his next season. Smuin was 68. “We are all deeply saddened and shocked,” said Dwight Hutton, Smuin Managing Director. “However, he died doing precisely what he loved to do. Our sympathy and condolences go out to Michael’s son, Shane, his brothers Stephen and Douglas and his former wife Paula Tracy during this difficult time.” “In the midst of our grief, we celebrate this great artist,” said Patti Hume, Board Chair for Smuin Ballet. “Michael was as much a San Francisco icon as the Golden Gate Bridge or the theatres of this City he graced for some many years with his artistry.” Smuin made the San Francisco Bay Area his home since he was a Principal Dancer with San Francisco Ballet, before going on to dance on Broadway, and appearing in film and television. He was Principal Dancer and Resident Choreographer for American Ballet Theatre before returning to San Francisco as Director of San Francisco Ballet (1973-1985), and was instrumental in raising that company's profile in the international arts community, including many “Dance in America” programs on PBS. He directed ABT's 50th Anniversary Gala. Broadway credits include Sophisticated Ladies, Anything Goes (Tony Award for Choreography), Shogun and Canciones de Mi Padre. Feature film credits include Rumble Fish, A Walk In the Clouds, Cotton Club, Star Wars, and The Fantasticks. Television credits include Ira Gershwin at 100: A Celebration at Carnegie Hall. He has won Emmy Awards for Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, and A Song for Dead Warriors. His ballets are currently in the repertories of major dance companies around the country. Plans for a memorial service are pending. The Smuin family requests that in lieu of flowers, donations and remembrances be made to Smuin Ballet.

A note on young casts -- When Ashton staged his "Romeo and Juliet" for the then-London Festival Ballet, he chose two 16-year-old Juliets (Trinidad Sevillano and Kathy Healy). Now, they were exceptional dancers even at that young age, and it was duly noted that their performances lacked the depth of Fonteyn or Ulanova, BUT their youth was so touching that people understood the reason for the casting. You never know how bad it will be until the curtain falls

John-Michael, I think the current production IS tongue iin cheek (as are contemporary productions of "Le Corsaire," based on a poem by Byron, and which brought tears to the eyes of its original viewers. In Cyril W. Beaumont's Great Book of the Ballets, there is this bit of a review of the London production (by Italian dancers) in 1885: "The lean and lissom primo ballerino Signor Enrico Cecchetti not only fairly astounds by his wondrous pirouetting, but dances throughout in such finished and graceful style as fairly to conquer the prejudice I have generally entertained against the masculine ballet dancer. In the plump and pleasing prima ballerina, Signora Adelina Roossi, he has a worthny co-adjudicator." There must have been a camp element of this production, though, as Beaumont characterizes the review (iin the Illusttrated Sporting and Dramatic News) as "wriwtten in a half-humorous vein" -- or it may simply have not been to the writer's tastes, as it wasn't a drama. Excelsior was a spectacle, not only to celebrate the advances of Western Civilization, but the state-of-the-art technique of Italian dancers. Perhaps these shows were, like variety shows, intended to appeal to a variety of audiences (all seated together in the same place on the same night). For the lover of classical dancer, there were the variations and ballabile. For the general public, there were scantily clad girls and explosive special effects. "The Black Crook" is considered in some books the first "musical comedy" and in others a classical ballet -- or at least, a play wiith singing and dancing annd speaking that also had several grand ballabiles of classical dancing. Prostitutes served as extras, but prima ballerinas from La Scala took serious dancing parts.

I just watched the whole thing last week I've seen a 13-minute clip of a touring production from 1913, and, based on that (which may be equally inauthentic) there are numerous changes, most obvious being that the Spirit of Light and the Spirit of Darkness were mime roles (female and male, respectrively). The other is that the stage is on two levels (there's a hint of this in the contemporary version). There are platforms on the wing sides and across the back of the stage, upon which entirely different (but complimentary) choreography is being performed. !!!! You are exactly right, John-Michael; from what one reads, this is very like "The Black Crook" and "The White Faun". Lots of novice and quasi-dancers, and a few true technicians. Cecchetti created (I write without checking) the role of the Savage (I know he danced it). Another difference is that in the 1913 version, there's a big group dance for maidens and cave men. The men, dressed like cave men, have clubs. At first, they're used for war and rape. But as civilization progresses, they become pistons. They're still used to pull the women towards them, but for a commercial rathere than physically rapacious purpose. (I was also watching the 1990 version of the Kirov's "Sleeping Beauty" and some of the same steps and movements are in the garland dance. "Sleeping Beauty" had been staged in Milan, so I don't know whether the italians borrowed this from Beauty, or the dance is from an older ballet. I think the ballet was taken seriously -- not as a pop entertainment. It was conspicuous consumption brought to the ballet. It's just not top of the line choreographhy. There were several other ballets of this type in Italy, one oof them being "Sport" with golf, tennis and cycling routines. (In the current DVD of "Excelsior" I must admit I'm partial to the dance of the lampshades, which light up at the end. They don't make 'em like that anymore!)

Him, I could imagine slaying a tiger. Thanks, RG!

Bart, I agree! Didn't anyone else read this? We've had so much discussion about good writing (or not) in the NY Times, I thought this would cause comment. No. I thought it might cause a few cheers!

It doesn't like my browser (Safari) so I can't help -- although I doubt I'd understand much. Sorry!

That you for that, support system. I knew he was teaching a children's class at SAB, but hadn't heard much about his teaching, so I appreciate your comments.

The press release is, as yet, only in Danish. Here is a link to a Danish page with Hubbe's accomplishments -- and some nice photos. (The photos are in English ) Nikolaj Hubbe I can sympathize with NYCB goers. After so many seasons when he was injured, though, I'm glad he's going out on a high. His one role here this "season" was the divertissement in "Miidsummer" and he was, as zerbinetta wrote in a different context, mesmerizing. Leigh, I think I would disagree on the repertory. I think there will be a change -- less neogrunge I do agree on morale. I did a piece on his production of "La Sylphide" for the Post when the company came to Washington a few years ago, and talked to most of the principals. Every one of them was very enthusiastic about working with Hubbe and talked about how inspiring he was. Editing to add: I just checked this link and the page is blank (6:21 p.m. Friday EST) Perhaps they're updating it?