kfw

The last time I was there I was delighted to see fuzz on those screens. I've never been to a concert -- classical, jazz, or pop -- where before the show they played tapes of the same outfit I'd come to hear. In the same way, I want "Apollo" to a special occasion, not the background to buying tickets.

Perhaps it's my imagination because I'm so happy to be reading a knowledgeable and highly opinionated critic again, but hasn't MacCauley been writing more often that Rockwell did? Surely Sifton largely leaves it up to him as to which debuts to cover and which to forgo for other performances.

That's a real tribute. Judging by an article in the Telegraph, she is 42.

I wonder if there were more such dancers when Graham and Balanchine and Ashton and others of their stature were around. We seem to be bigger than ever on self-expression these days. Or maybe that's a myth. But working with the masters in any age must somewhat reorder one's enthusiasm.

That's a strangely worded quote, it seems to me. If the works aren't good enough to allow the dancers to show their full potential, the works can't truly be stars. But taken together with his lament that more masterpieces are not being created, I guess what he means is that he thinks the way to get more masterpieces is for choreographers to take their inspiration primarily from the dancers.

Charles Askegard

Thank you, rg.

For clarification, is that in response to or only Thanks, folks. I can't believe I wrote "Wallace" instead of "William."

I'm intrigued by an idea of Robert Gottlieb's in his year end, NYCB wrap up column in the NY Observer, , Ashley Bouder to the Rescue as Kyra Nichols Waves Farewell that now that Bouder has "mastered" Emeralds and Rubies, and has achieved "effortless command of the ultra-classical Tschaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 2, it won’t be long before she completes her parure with “Diamonds.†Far be it from me to disagree with so distinguished a critic, especially when I've only seen Bouder in a half a dozen roles, but given the little I've seen and the more I've read I'm having a hard time imagining this for two reasons. The first reason is Bouder's soubrette personality, and the second is her height. In Nancy Goldner's Repertory in Review I see that Balanchine cast Kay Mazzo in Diamonds, and I remember that Iliana Lopez with her husband Franklin Gamero of Miami City Ballet shone in this, so height may not be an issue, although I'd think that in the pas de deux especially long lines would be a great advantage. And in regards to personality, Bouder has gravitas where she needs it in Serenade. Obviously she has daring like the role's originator. Still, when I think of the grandeur and mystery or, failing that, at least the reserve, that Diamonds asks for, I can't quite see it. It's so lady-like a role, and in what I've seen Bouder is still so girlish. Balanchine was known for casting against type to, pardon the pun, stretch his dancers, and Bouder was apparently successful in Emeralds. So do you share Gottlieb's vision? What am I missing?

hbl, as you said, MacCauley didn't just criticize her, he complimented her as well. I think that's the combination we all need to help us grow. And I'll bet that's what MacCauley has in mind.

I've moved discussion of the Hubbard Street Company and its performance in Durham to a new thread in the Modern and Other Dance forum. Here at Ballet Talk we like to honor the distinction between the two types of dance. The new thread can be found here -- http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...c=25125&hl= . Please keep posting!

I've begun a new thread for further discussion of the Hubbard Street Company and its performance in Durham, and have moved previous posts on the MacCauley thread here.

That's beautiful, carbro. Thanks.

This reminds me of Balanchine's famous remark to a mother hoping her young student daughter would be come a star : ""La danse, madame, c'est une question morale." I've always taken this to mean that beauty comes from discipline, which in turn comes from character. In this way, beauty reflects character. How beautiful!

Mme. Hermine, those caricatures are a hoot! Thanks a lot.

You can say that again. I'm glad I took a 7 hour train trip to New York last weekend instead of, as I'd previously considered, going up this weekend for Part's Swan Lake. Heal soon, Veronika!

I've always looked forward to Gottlieb's writing. And of course his editorship of The New Yorker overlapped with Alistair MacCauley's two stints there. Does anyone remember, did Wallace Shawn bring MacCauley in the first time, or was it Gottlieb?

As someone who teaches undergraduates, I would say any such assumption is misguided, begining with the basic assumption that the populace is well-educated. That's true, but then not everyone has the money or the interest to attend the ballet regularly. I'll guess that most of MacCauley's core readership has a decent arts and humanities education. And from that I think it follows that these readers will sense where their education is lacking and go fill it in. A good critic is a good educator.

I think critics writing for the informed audience you referrred to earlier not only have the right to make those judgments in print, but know that much of their audience is eager to read them. That frankness is one thing that makes Robert Gottlieb so valuable in the NY Observer. If that's too inflammatory, then perhaps we should skip reading reviews altogether and -- nod to Leigh's bemused hopes for impassioned critics -- the fans themselves should be dueling, perhaps in Lincoln Center Plaza after the Midsummer Night's Swing season. Strong art produces (wonderfully) strong opinions.

Yes, and another interesting point is that his wife, Laura Jacobs, whose work I love, frequently verges on the flowery, and for some people apparently crosses over. MacCauley weeps; she rhapsodizes metaphorically at length: two cognate tendencies it seems to me. Is Part's dancing also no more spiritual than an electric can opener? Other than that, while my sympathies are with MacCauley, Wolcott's rant in pretty darn funny. Just what did Croce do in the Israeli Air Force?

I saw a video camera and tripod set up in back of the theater. Can't remember where exactly, but I think in back of the orchestra or First Ring.

Absolutely! One should explain one's opinions and do so in a clear and graceful way. Macauley should be trying to enlighten his reading audience rather than get off personal barbs at the dancers. Snide, sarcastic remarks (see those on Georgina Parkinson and Irina Dvorovenko today) or harsh judgments without qualifiers (like "dull" for Veronika) are personal attacks and show a deep disrespect for artists who are certainly doing the best to honor their craft and give their all to the audience. The remarks make the reviewer seem bitter, arrogant and too jaded and too biased to do his job well. Ideally a critic would explain every value judgment, but then ideally the Times would let MacCauley write as often as he wanted at whatever length he wanted. I understand your feelings without, at least as of yet, sharing your judgment of his motives. Given how dearly he obviously loves this art form -- another difference with Rockwell in my opinion -- I think it's possible and even probable that over time he'll explain more of his judgments, as he briefly did, in my opinion, in regards to Parkinson and Dvorenko (“Don’t look at him,” for example). One could argue that too much of what he said was subjective. But, again in my opinion, the frequent differences in opinions on this board among experienced balletomanes illustrate how large of a role subjectivity, or at least objectivity insufficiently articulated, plays in our judgments. To assume that his opinions stem from bitterness and the like might be -- one more time: in my opinion -- as unfair to him as he's accused of being to those dancers.

nysusan, what you read as jabs, I read as appropriate and timely expressions of opinion. I like critics to be frank as possible. Yes it would have been nice if McCauley had told us why he ranks Nichols above her contemporaries, but he only has so much space. And I can't think of a better time to rank her than now as she's retiring. He's only been writing for the Times for a couple of months, after all. As for criticizing Part in her mime role -- and I love Part and liked her in that role in D.C. -- perhaps he singled her out precisely because she is such a controversial dancer. Again, that's what I want from a critic.

I susbscribe to four magazines and a bi-monthly audio magazine, and read the NY Times online, but I still buy the Times or the Washington Post at least once or twice a week. Free online content is great, but holding the magazine or newspaper in my hands, being able to feel it and smell it and turn its pages, affords so much more pleasure.

I'm not much of a critic and I hadn't meant to post, but thinking about the performances again was so stirring that here a few thoughts: We saw both Saturday programs, my wife and I; we really treasure this company, the Little Company that Could, I think someone called them, and we cheer them on. Pickard was in her element in Scotch, radiant and ethereal, completely confident and secure in the drops. To my mind, she was perfection, and Runqiao Du is always ardent and noble. Mozartiana was more of a stretch, and after the Preghiera the technical challenges did look like challenges sometimes. I thought there was a spot or too when she was off the music. But she was no less moving for it; she had the spirit of the ballet. In Divertimento Brilliante, Shannon Parsely, the other redhead and our favorite among the women, gave us much more pleasure than she did the critics. She looked a little heavy in the tutu, but she was quick when she had to be. And we've seen her enough to know that her "pasted on smile" (LaRocca's words) at least, was for real. The choreography to the Glinka, and in the evening to the Mozart, was the sort of perfect and perfectly understated Balanchine classicism that makes your heart soar. The Bejart is kitsch, but the two young lovers, Hubbard and Prescott were so adorable I didn't care. Slaughter got two differing performances. As the striptease girl Elizabeth Holowchuk at the matinee vamped with great freedom and great sexy glee. Lisa Reneau in the evening was just as much in character but sometimes looked awkward on the floor, and couldn't match Holowchuk's abandon. As the Hoofer, Kirk Henning was a delight at both performances, drawing laughs for example as he momentarily lost rythminic complexity in his taps after receiving the warning note. But his matinee solo lacked characterization. By the evening the blank look was gone and he showed the proper fear and desperation in his face and in his voice, even leaping over the dead Big Boss with greater determination.