Helene

That this is a publicity photo may make all of this irrelevant, but I'm not sure Farrell's regiment was as the front here. I remember from her memoir that Balanchine had taken her to a burlesque show where one of the performers was looking down at the ground, looking bored. Then she lifted her eyes, and captured their attention, and Farrell filed it away for the future. The future was "Union Jack", where she looked to the ground as the lines circled forward and she looked at the ground until she made it to the front, and then looked up. Again, my memory may be very faulty, because it's been two decades since I've seen the entire ballet, but I thought she was in the middle, at least at some points, and that the regiment in front was the first one on, maybe in green. I love this ballet, but for me, it's a dead spot between the opening processional march and Macdonald of Sleat.

I don't understand. The only way that the dancers are identified by regiment name is in the program. The music is all over the place. I remember RCAF being clad in a light blue gray tartan and dancing to softish Handel, but the color scheme impression could be my mind playing tricks.

The woman to the far right popped to me as Calegari. All of the regiments in the first part wore Highland dress. The first time I saw Calegari lead RCAF/Wrens was in the Winter 1983 season, but I missed the 1979 performances.

We are a discussion board, and our mission is to discuss classical ballet. We are not a fan board or a shrine. We welcome criticism and will continue to do so.

You'll never get that from every individual review: he doesn't have enough space. In general, from dance critics I get this from reading their work over time. With Macaulay that started when he wrote for The New Yorker, taking over the "Dancing" column after Arlene Croce. He's written enough explicitly over the years that it was easier for me to get his context than many other critics. I would have thought the same, since she's an active contributor as a book reviewer for the magazine.

We are working from a different definition of the term “media critic.” My understanding of the contemporary definition is that a media critic is someone who comments on the place and status of various media, often news media, in contemporary culture, a definition which embraces the (relatively) new field of media studies. Film, to use a term Kael disliked, is a medium, but I think of dance, theater, music, and film critics as arts critics, not media critics. Kael restricted herself exclusively to movies, rarely venturing beyond that confine to make larger comments on media although she often generalized on the topic of culture high and low. We can agree to disagree. puppytreats was talking about critics who are published in mainstream media, like newspapers and magazines, as opposed to books of literary criticism clarified in a second post in the thread. That was the topic of conversation.

Chase Finlay (although maybe he is a dirty blond?) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/arts/dance/17nycb.html?_r=1&ref=arts Ah, so it's not tall blonds he loves, but some tall dancers "with a long neck and handsome carriage; an attentive and capable partner; and a skilled dancer of beautifully stretched lines and gleaming precision." -- I certainly wouldn't argue about these criteria -- and from the rest of the review, certainly not to the exclusion of other types for men. Most of what I've read all-around about Finlay has been glowing, and it's a bit like noticing Pavarotti has a nice voice. As a film critic, she certainly was in the spectrum of rock critics to dance critics who write for newspapers and magazines, which was the topic.

A few excerpts from the great American dance critic Arlene Croce's reviews in "The New Yorker": From July 4 1997 ("Beyond Ballet Theatre") From May 18, 1981 ("A New Old" 'Giselle") Croce could kill with 1000 cuts or she could be like Kyuzo in "The Seven Samurai". That said I don't know how much Macaulay was influenced by American dance criticism (or just a few like Croce) compared to how much he was formed by that in Great Britain, where he grew up and where the majority of his career has been. Just about every dedicated critic has confidence in his or her taste: the question for me is whether it's explicit or stated indirectly. What I find great about Macaulay's criticism is that he describes what he doesn't want to see. It's about context. Croce shows it in the examples above, and she had much more space per topic. There are two distinct school of criticism, and the difference is how much of the personal is explicitly stated, because the personal comes through, regardless of how objective even a description is. There's also space and purpose: is the piece meant to be an ongoing narrative, an essay, or to provide enough information to make the reader decide whether to see the artist/company now or in the future or to look for more info. Since you gave a personal example, why would you give credence to literary criticism given your example of the music critics whom you find dismissive of the band you admire? Why would you give credence to a literary critic regardless of subject or genre? Why dismiss all critics of a genre? (I've read some splendid rock critics.) Why would dance critics be more likely to "to want to achieve superiority and notoriety by disrespecting and discounting the popular musicians, without regarding to factual history, critical validity, or veracity" rather than literary critics about popular and contemporary literature? If any dance critics in the major media are wrong with their facts, it is often discussed here, if the info is public record. For me, it all depends on the critic, the format, and my knowledge of the subject for how much I take the critic seriously: it's a matter of trust and track record. Does the critic describe the qualities that support conclusions? Does he or she provide context? Because if he or she does, in an art form/company I know, I can come to my own conclusion based on the info available. That's why I found media critic Pauline Kael so great: I didn't have to agree with her conclusions, but I knew what movie I was seeing, and the one time she didn't do this, in a review of a re-release of "L'atalante", where she discussed why the movie was important and not what the movie was like, I dragged a friend and his girlfriend with me, and we found it so dull, I owed him five action movies, no questions asked, no vetoes. For a lot of modern dance criticism about companies and work with which I'm not familiar, it doesn't matter how vivid the description or insightful the commentary: I don't have a visual or other context for the work, and I have to look at the more general info the critic gives and either see the work or go the next time if the general appeals in any way. Why would you automatically take Joan Acocella's literary criticism in The New Yorker any more seriously than her dance criticism there? Critics come in all sizes: some are general critics with years of experience in that genre -- classical music, opera, photography, architecture, ballet, modern dance, rock music -- some are critics who are given a new genre, like classical music and rock critic John Rockwell, who preceded Macaulay as dance critic at the NYT, an experiment I deem a failure because I never found him insightful about ballet -- and some have been dedicated to a specific genre for many years. I find many general critics, who are usually the only or the main arts critic for a newspaper, out of their depth in some of what they cover in general and some classical music critics unforgiving towards the non-Tchaikovsky 19th century story ballets because of the scores in particular, questioning the relevance of ballet classics in a way they'd never question the relevance of "Cosi fan tutte". Many of the greatest dance critics -- Croce, Denby, for example -- loved Balanchine, and volumes are devoted to their criticism. Does that automatically disqualify them from reviewing the 19th century classics? Macaulay, for example, began watching dance and writing criticism in England, where the Balanchine pickings were slim, and Ashton and Macmillan were the major choreographers on view. For me his depth of knowledge and the context he brings make me respect what he writes, even if I don't agree with him or always see his point. I don't know what other "tall blonds" he loves besides David Hallberg. Hallberg is a close to a stylistic throwback and type that is rarely admired or seen today, even from the companies -- ex: Bolshoi, Mariinsky, Royal Danish Ballet -- that used to pride themselves on his type, and I can see his appeal, if I don't share AM's enthusiasm to the same degree: if a contemporary opera singer displayed the vocal style of a Thill or Sobinov, I'd be over the moon. He has given ample description of what he sees in San Francisco Ballet's Vanessa Zahorian, of which I've only seen rare glimpses. He didn't mention what I thought was a great performance by a favorite Ballet Arizona dancer of mine in last year's Balanchine program. He doesn't like Veronika Part, and I do. So what? I wouldn't expect to agree with a spouse on everything, either. Plus, I love the way he writes.

I think it's quite ironic that Macaulay is regularly criticized for being obsessed with Fonteyn and the Royal Ballet as a standard for classical ballet, the same Fonteyn who was coached in the classics by Vera Volkova, a direct descendant of the Imperial ballet schooling in Russia, when he is actually providing context before a week ago last Sunday. Macaulay has written decades of criticism that refute any assertion that he has no real use for 19th century story ballets.

Admin note: The company forum review threads are for thoughts about performances that BalletAlertniks have seen. For discussing reviews of performances that you haven't seen, please post in the "Writings on Ballet" forum, where posts on the Macaulay review have been moved.

[Admin beanie on] Please tone down the rhetoric to civil. [Admin beanie off]

When you're subscribed to a thread to get email notification, the smilies don't show, only the code. I had to check the actual post to see what "icon8" was Hope you have a great day at the beach!

I feel terribly spoiled by the last three HD broadcasts: the acting has been fantastic, and especially in "Nixon in China". I didn't realize that Sellars was directing the broadcast until someone -- Hampson? -- mentioned it. He really chose the close-ups wisely and to the singers' great advantage. Edited to add: I've been listening to the tape-delayed broadcast on CBC2 in Vancouver -- I think it's live on the East Coast -- and there was just a post-performance mini-interview with Robert Orth, who sang the role in Vancouver and is currently performing it in Toronto with Canadian Opera Company. He talked about having visited Disneyland with his wife and kids and noticed a whole bunch of guys in trench coats talking into their lapels. The occasion was a visit by Richard Nixon, his daughter Tricia, and her children. He said that at the time, while many people were asking for autographs, he would have wanted to kick him, but knowing what he knows now, he would have given him a big hug. For anyone in Toronto, go see this production! http://coc.ca/PerformancesAndTickets/1011Season/NixonInChina.aspx

According to the review of the production in the "Arizona Republic", "There were several stand-out performances, and perhaps the most notable was Roman Zavarov as the gypsy in Act II. He seems to have as much swagger as Errol Flynn." Andersen is spreading the parts around and featuring different dancers in each program, while still giving them rich opportunities when they aren't in lead roles.

Mao is the one major character who doesn't have a major scene to himself, but who sings in the great meeting scene with Nixon in Act I in a role that is written in, according to composer John Adams himself, a "punishing" tessitura. Robert Brubaker was wonderful in the role.

The women owned the second act, first Janis Kelly as Pat Nixon and then Kathleen Kim as Chiang Ch'ing, who was especially funny and frightening when she was angry with the weather. Mark Morris did a wonderful job with "The Red Detachment of Women", which had far more interaction with the main characters than in the production I saw last year in Vancouver. Morris, who gave good interview during 2nd intermission, had a field day with Richard Paul Fink as Henry Kissinger/Landowner, who was rolling all over the place. I love what this production does with the three translators as mini Greek chorus. Through most of the Mao-Nixon scene in Act I, they had gestures throughout at the same time they sang. At one point they held a gesture so long during a passage in which Mao was singing, my arms almost fell off watching. I'm not sure if they were by Morris, Sellers, or both, but they were brilliant and beautifully done Kudos and to the three women.

The end of the intermission is near, and if you're not listening to the Sat broadcast, tune in now. Act I highlight was Russell Braun's Chou En Lai: he poured out vocal gold. Worth the price if the broadcast: The mini- interview with director Peter Sellars.

I think the Ugly Sisters overwhelm the story in the 1969 video, because Helpmann is such a poisonous presence. I compared Helpmann and Ashton's performances to the earlier made-for-TV version with Fonteyn and Somes, and had forgotten that Macmillan was cast against Ashton, and between Macmillan's characterization and the changes made for the video, the balance is much better. That version did make a mess of the seasons variations, but the version is gold for preserving the Winter Fairy variation danced by Svetlana Beriosova.

My impression is that like the clock, the seasons represent the natural passage of time. Ashton's variations so beautifully depict the seasons and reflect the music, and the summer variation is one of the most exquisite variations that I've ever seen, especially as danced in the 1969 video by Vyvyan Lorrayne.

In preparation for Pacific Northwest Ballet's production of "Cinderella", with choreography by Kent Stowell, PNB has published Doug Fullington's pre-performance video lecture, which includes a history of "Cinderella", including productions, like by Petipa, to music other than Prokofiev's, as well as an overview of the PNB production, with rehearsal clips from that production, and info about the other Prokofiev music that Stowell added. The rehearsal clips show Ariana Lallone as the Stepmother, Maria Chapman as Cinderella, Lindsi Dec (black leotard) and Chalnessa Eames as the stepsisters, Jonathan Porretta as the Dancing Master, a glimpse of Carla Korbes (blond) as Cinderella, a glimpse of Otto Neubert and Kent Stowell rehearsing the children with Dream Mother Carrie Imler, Kylee Kitchens and Jerome Tisserand as Dream Mother and Father, and Seth Orza as The Prince. There are a number of photos, including a stunner of Galina Ulanova and a sketch of the set design for the Petipa version among them. It looks to me like Lallone in the "Prodigal Son" photo.

Admin note to puppytreats: Your question about Met seating has been moved from a Seattle-based forum to its own topic in the American Ballet Theatre forum, where it will be seen by people who see ballet regularly at the Met. The answer might be quite different if answered from an opera perspective.

Does the conductor stand above the orchestra pit in the new configuration? If so, then front row dead center seats (behind the conductor) are awful. I once had them at the Met for an ABT performance, and I was miserable. To see faces, in the old configuration, I've always loved between five and eight rows back a bit towards the side. You can see between heads that way.

The Met's a bigger theater with many more premium seats. Seattle Opera has been doing "mandatory contributions" for as long as I can remember. The ballet was slower to do this; I think they started with the move to McCaw Hall. At the time I remember a newspaper article about a school teacher, a long-time subscriber, who scraped together the money for an expensive subscription and could no longer afford it when they added a mandatory contribution of hundreds of dollars. It's become standard operating procedure in Seattle. As far as I know, the Symphony builds it into the price, so that it is not tax-deductible, but my really great seats in the top tier doubled in price over the course of a few years for existing subscribers.

I hope they make it to YouTube and DVD.

The default wasy to receive notifications are through a number near your sign-in name -- you have to look for it -- and in the right-hand column, which lists open PM conversations. There are many different ways of getting additional messenger notification. The most immediate way is to get an email notification, which can be set up by clicking the down-arrow next to your login name in the upper right corner of the screen, and then: 1. Select "My Settings" 2. Click "Notification Options" from the left hand menu 3. Scroll 4. Click the email options for Private Messenger. There are also "mobile" options, which I've never tried. On the same page you can opt for pop-up messages and inline messages. The issue with inline messages is that the counter also appears near the login name, and the default and inline counters are not connected and do not reset together when you read a message. I've been on email notification since the start, and I've always verified that the default counter and the list in the right column display the PM as well. I've never had a discrepancy. I just don't look for the counter most other times, especially since my browser is usually open for days and is in various positions of scrolling. When I had inline notification, it was too much of a pain to reset the counter, and I tended to ignore it.