Andre Yew Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Added by LAW - I split this thread off from This Year's Lows - the link to the article in question is there. I have no idea what Jack Anderson is talking about when he says GPD's home videos didn't work in the US. From the reviews I've read, and the audience reactions I've seen, it worked very well. Perhaps he meant to say that it didn't work for him. --Andre Link to comment
Alexandra Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 A digression, but I think a point worth making. Andre, I think one is supposed to read "I think" or "in my opinion" when reading any critic. When I started at the Post, I would write that, and was told to take it out, because it's assumed that what I'm writing is my opinion. I've found, especially from experience with message boards, that this is NOT assumed by many readers, but it's part of the rules, for lack of a better term, under which critics operate. Link to comment
Leigh Witchel Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 It's something I discovered when I started to write shorter articles that were limited by word count. You can't qualify your assertions, you just have to make them. There isn't the space and for newspaper writing, it sucks the energy out of the article. Link to comment
kfw Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 A digression, but I think a point worth making. Andre, I think one is supposed to read "I think" or "in my opinion" when reading any critic. When I started at the Post, I would write that, and was told to take it out, because it's assumed that what I'm writing is my opinion. I've found, especially from experience with message boards, that this is NOT assumed by many readers, but it's part of the rules, for lack of a better term, under which critics operate. Once upon a time, or so I imagine remembering, people approached a review thinking of the critic as something of an authority. Not that the writer might not be mistaken in ways large or small. But given that the critics's experience of the art form vastly dwarfed that of the average reader, chances are they were better able than said reader to judge the work at hand. Nowadays it seems, we're so taken with confused notions of equality and individuals "truths" that it's bad form to even make an assertion without qualifying it as what it obviously is -- an opinion. Link to comment
Andre Yew Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 Alexandra, I understand that criticisms are often written with an implied "in my opinion", but Jack Anderson wrote a rather absolute statement: Another marketing ploy, which in the United States did not work, involved the English modern dance troupe called George Piper Dances. Perhaps I'm just being picky, but it seems to me that the bolded part is an overstatement, unless he speaks for all US audiences, or he has read no reviews of GPD in the US, including that of his colleague. --Andre Link to comment
Mel Johnson Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 That looks more like an observation on the revenue than on the artistic side of the endeavor. We've seen altogether too many artistic successes and box office failures in combination. Link to comment
Leigh Witchel Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 I think again it's a function of word limit and venue. You don't qualify your assertions in newspaper writing. There's no space and editors don't want it. Perfectly OK to disagree with it, and to question it, but I don't think he's out of line stating an opinion in this way. Link to comment
Alexandra Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Andre, I understand your reasoning and it's not unreasonable As a writer, I don't think we (writers) can win. If we write from the point of view that kfw describes above -- that the reason we've been asked to write about a subject is because we have some expertise in it; this is for newspaper and magazine writing, of course, where writers are vetted, and so we just write and assume that readers will understand this -- then we face the objection you raise. If we write "that doesn't work for me" and "in my opinion, John Doe was off-form last night in the Corsaire solo" then another chunk of the audience will wonder why we're doing it. Link to comment
Dale Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 I agree with Leigh, space and tone are involved here. I've found that I often hide behind, "I think" or "for me..." I like to use those things on a message board, very much in fact, because we're having a friendly conversation. But in my professional writing (for lack of a better phrase) I've forced myself, in order to develop my voice and my ideas, to remove those phrases from my writing. When I write about sports at my job, there's no question on many things. A player scores 25 points and pulls down 10 rebounds - it's a fact that's in the box score. It's not an opinion. But in some of the other writing I've been doing, taking away the qualifiers makes me take a stand and be ready to defend it and gives my writing more direction (whether people agree or not). I did read Anderson's asertion and thought, "Hmm, many reviews like it. And some reviewers thought the cheeky humor very British and weren't amused." I guess Anderson was in the later group. Link to comment
Andre Yew Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 Yes, I agree with all that writing "in my opinion", etc. isn't necessary in a professional review. However, the way Anderson's criticism is couched as a summary of all US performances (because he then goes on to say how successful it was for British audiences) rubs me the wrong way. I don't object at all to the fact that he didn't explicitly identify it as his personal opinion. What's wrong with writing only "which did not work", omitting "in the US"? He gets his observation across, and the writing and reasoning aren't as sloppy. The New York Times is an influential paper, and for an article about the worst of 2003, this influence should be carefully wielded. To justify an inclusion on the list with an observation that is, at best, inaccurate, and, at worst, a lie (of which I'm not necessarily accusing the author) is irresponsible. --Andre Link to comment
Nanatchka Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 I know full well the exigencies of short formats in specialzed contexts (listings, newspaper reviews, other brief forms), but I still, myself (this use of"myself"would be an example of what I am in fact writing about), like the slight mist of distance allied with unveiled personalization that characterize phrases like "it seems," "one cannot but be reminded of," "to me," "possibly, " etc. I have come to like these little devices later in my career rather than earlier--at the beginning, I charged around like some sort of Caped Avenger. (I even wore capes, although only in the evening.) There are ways to maintain voice and curtail length, to reassure a dissenting reader and lure him on, and to, of all things, hedge one's bets. As for Jack Anderson's assertion that those Ballet Boyz flicks were a failure--I doubt it. In this case, I think youth speaks to youth--or at any rate (another nice conditional phrase) young to younger. Anyway, they were a practical device more than, in the context of the Joyce concerts, a marketing device. (No one went to the theater to see the films.) Something had to go on between dances. Why not little films? I found them very reminsicent of Moses Pendelton's antic cinematography surrounding Pilobolus and Momix, but blessedly less arty. Link to comment
Farrell Fan Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Jack Anderson makes clear he's expressing his own opinion: Referring to the "cute videos," he says, "The British audiences who know these dancers may have been charmed by them. But I just thought (my italics) it was purely a marketing ploy, a rather self-congratulatory one, like showing home movies of what they did on their summer vacations." In fact, the "ballet boyz" came off rather well in Sunday's Times, I thought. Surmounting the article was a large, silhouetted photograph of two of their number. Link to comment
Alexandra Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 I hope we get more comments from readers -- the issue of tone is a critical one. What do you expect/want from a critic? Part of Andre's point, I think, was whether a critic can write that something "doesn't work" if there's reason to believe that it does work for most people. What if, say, you're seeing a Nutcracker where the choreographer has set the Prince's solo to the Sugar Plum Fairy's music, and Sugar Plum's to the Prince's? And say that you, the critic, thinks that the results are ridiculous, because the Prince looks like a mincing fool and Sugar Plum looks manic. But they get cheers, screams and a Standing O. Can you write, "Although I have nothing against gender bender dance in general, this particular swtich just didn't work." You mean that it didn't work as choreography, the people who loved it may take it differently. And if you add anything like, "Although the audience cheered lustily" you come off as sounding condescending. Link to comment
Calliope Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 I've been away for a while at school but coming home to find my mailbox stuffed with magazines, I flipped through a few of the last Dance Magazines and wondered where the heck the articles were. I have read far more articles in "Dog Fancy". It seemed the magazine was more advertisements. Which brings me back to my point, mainstream mag/newspaper critiques have gone the way of...well, they've gone away. It seems now instead of actually actually saying anything, they just give observations. I'm waiting for the ABCDF rating to be placed at the end of the reviews. It's terrible, but reading reviews has just become silly. "so and so danced a lovely adagio and by the way did you see who was in the audience..." is more commonplace. I wonder if it's because the audience has changed, not so much in that we don't care to read the reviews, but they became so "dumbed-down" that it's pointless to read them and now we have this situation. We need new blood in the critics area or at least those that who aren't afraid to draw some. Not that I want all the reviews to be mean or constantly criticizing, but I want to read something that makes me think. Link to comment
Alexandra Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 This is one of the reasons why I started danceview times -- Calliope you've been away and so may not know about this (and good to read you again!) but you might want to check it every Monday (back issues accessible through the nav bar at right): www.danceviewtimes.com re Dance Magazine -- I think the problem there is space. It's just not possible to write anything intelligent in 300 words. Link to comment
kfw Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Can you write, "Although I have nothing against gender bender dance in general, this particular swtich just didn't work." That's exactly what I always hope to read, honest praise and honest criticism. If I've seen the performance or the choreography or dancer/s in question, the chief pleasure of a review for me is to match my opinions with the critic's and perhaps have mine challenged. Of course I'm disappointed if the writer knocks something I loved, but I'm looking to sharpen my own eye and ear and mind, both for the pure intellectual pleasure of it, and so I'll more deeply appreciate the next performance. Link to comment
Recommended Posts