dirac

"Melancholia" is getting good reviews even from critics who normally deride von Trier. Not sure if that's a good thing or not, but I'll certainly be seeing it if there's an opportunity. (Link to our discussion of von Trier's "Antichrist" here.)

I don't know that it would have discouraged a very determined young dancer. From what one can glean from the article she was always somewhat ambivalent about ballet. Perhaps all those absences speak for themselves.

Oh, absolutely.

I'm embarrassed to admit the name didn't immediately ring a bell with me. Thanks for the heads up.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said it wasn't universally true. Writers for weeklies are not necessarily under that compulsion, either, depending on the publication. It also depends on the art form, as well. The New Yorker has two staff movie critics who alternate issues, as the magazine has done for decades, but it's clear that nobody's forcing Joan Acocella to write about everything she may be seeing.

I gathered from the NYT article is that it was primarily the fact of the book's popularity that made Stephanie's leaving the school so awkward. No doubt it would have been painful for her in any case, but having been the subject of a best seller made it very considerably worse, probably something Mom didn't think about when she gave her consent to Krementz's project. (I would also guess that there was something else going on - this wasn't just a bout of depression but troubles that plagued much of her life. One tidbit that stood out in the Times piece was that her father didn't find out for years that she hadn't left SAB voluntarily.) Nor did I get the impression that she took all the blame on herself, not that she should have done. It is certainly true in general that women are more inclined to be harder on themselves than men when they receive such a setback. A mite harsh, perhaps? She was just a kid.

This is not universally true. Professional critics don't always have to see everything (and it isn't necessarily desirable to do so). A critic should see enough to know what he's talking about, but seeing too much can dull the senses of reviewers who really have to see everything, such as movie critics for popular publications. I see what you mean about "objectively" - no critic can be truly objective but bloggers are at liberty to be fans, whereas critics should restrain such feelings insofar as humanly possible.

Well, Sondheim is writing from the point of view of theater, where critics continue to wield more power than they do in other art forms. Strange reading this sort of thing from him, though: Sondheim might disagree but quite a few of the "paid pontificators," by which I assume he means trained professional critics with background and qualifications - have done rather well by him over the years.

Thanks for posting, Kathleen. Looks like good reading.

The London Revew of Books, New York Review and New Yorker have blogs on the front page, but the material is shorter and more topical - and doesn't have the depth and shape of the texts in the journal proper, which the writer has had considerable time to live with and mull over. My hunch is that may well be intentional. The blogs are there to try to keep current and satisfy online readers' constant appetite for new material, and the longer pieces, many of which remain under subscription bar, are for paying readers. Online readers often seem to have a lack of patience with long articles, at least judging by what bloggers say and these rather sad exhortations to "read the whole thing." Some of the best dance criticism was written by Denby while he was subbing for Robert Lawrence and Walter Terry.

Odd. I have the impression quite a few do, but I could be mistaken. Another nice thing is that many link to older articles on the same topic that the reader might have missed the last time around.

Many papers already offer additional commentary online in the paper's blog space, and they also post photo galleries, video, etc.

I think the Globe review was written by Karen Campbell. I don't know her background well, but Marcia B. Siegel and Jeffrey Gantz are both experienced dance writers. Writers for the internet have an advantage in that many of them are preaching to the converted - they write for an audience that has sought them out and can already be expected to know much of what writers for general interest publications feel constrained to explain. This often leads to livelier writing, based on the assumption of shared knowledge on the part of reader and writer. (Very similar to sports pages, where some of the best writing in the paper is to be found.) Often they have more space, as well. And unless they're writing for the Times, they generally don't get to review later performances, which means less time and space to discuss casting and dancers.

Thanks, Mme. Hermine. I bet Balanchine would have loved having a filly named after him.

An interview with Stephanie in The New York Times. Difficult situation. Something for parents to consider before giving their consent to this sort of thing.

Haven't seen it myself, but I would also be interested to hear from anyone who has. Almodovar has kind of lost his touch for me somewhat, but he usually produces something worth watching.

The "everyone's a critic" mentality that Kaiser mentions certainly does exist. A hazard of writing online is that there are so many voices it can be difficult to make oneself heard and also for readers to tell who really knows what he's talking about. The internet has provided opportunities for writers to be read, mostly unpaid, while the print publications that do pay their writers decent sums are slashing their arts coverage trying to compete with.......the internet. (See this old link here for a long discussion on the subject.) Like Jowitt, Tobias lost her job as a staff critic and is in online exile. I post links to her blog.

It will indeed be interesting to see what he does with two such virtuosi at his disposal. This could be new territory for all the parties concerned and let's hope they will all benefit.

I didn't see this article in today's Times, it is likely for Monday's print edition. I wonder if the financial instability mentioned in the article is part of the reason? I think that's a fair guess. Going by the article it sounds as if it was a combination of money worries, concerns that the company was identified too closely with Villella, and an aging and powerful director not taking hints as to where the door was. Well, I remember reading the dancers Villella fired in the layoff got letters in the mail. C'est la vie. He declined to draw a parallel between the end of his dancing and artistic director’s phases, only saying: “It’s really about the dancers. I wanted to make a company I would have liked to dance in.” Very nice thing to say. It sounds as if he succeeded.

The feet do look as if they were retouched a tiny bit to make them look narrower?? But if not, not. She had big hands and feet, as you can see in the photo; the hands are large in proportion to the head. As Paul notes, they helped onstage, because she was small and they extended her line. This photo highlights the delicacy of head and neck; like a peeled onion, as Le Clercq so vividly put it.

Also that there have been few decades more star-driven than the 1970s, when Balanchine was the acknowledged king of the hill. It is fair to say that bodies have become more uniform over time as directors were able to pick and choose from a larger talent pool. But that hasn't made stars any less valuable (or rare during certain periods). It is worth emphasizing, as Kathleen does, that we are reading a summary and not the paper itself. Charity, charity.....

A headache of a name and no mistake. I suppose you could argue that the name applied, at least as Saturday's race was concerned, since he was certainly a headache for Havre de Grace.

Thanks. Ed. Sounds worth a read. Good hearing from you.

I too am a little surprised by the lack of love for "The Golden Section." I didn't much care for it here as a bit of television, but it was no fault of Tharp or the dancers (or Byrne's score, a very effective piece of rock for a theatrical setting).

A happy sequel for Drosselmeyer, who went through some hard times after his Belmont win last season. Today he won the Breeder's Cup Classic, beating another Dude, Game on Dude, who was indeed very game. Drosselmeyer paid $31.60 to win. Another horse named Baryshnikov ran in another race today but was not in the money....