Anna Kisselgoff

[Ray]

Can anyone defend Kisselgoff's writing to me? I mean, would she lose her job to venture an opinion? That review of Musagete was the latest example of a characteristic Kisselgoff nonreview. (If she's going to justify it, to quote Dale, she could at least probe more into NYCB's reasons for mounting the ballet.) And what is she looking at? Once in a while her years of dance-going inform her reviews well. And I guess she is dillignet--she attendend two casts of Wheeldon's Swan Lake here in Philly. But then she calls the lighting "spectacular" (whatever you think of the ballet, I think you'd have to notice how *murky* the lighting was, actually). Ultimately, I don't find her reviews to be compelling reading, either as critical prose or investigative journalism.

[Farrell Fan]

I agree completely, Ray. She's never going to get anybody riled up the way Bob Gottlieb does or Clive Barnes occasionally used to. She can be scholarly, but mostly her writing is as murky as the lighting you describe. I too would really like to hear from anybody who enjoys reading her.

[kfw]

I too would really like to hear from anybody who enjoys reading her.

Her editor? When I was relatively new to ballet and had only the media for reviews, I looked forward to what she had to say and had to teach me. Ballet Alert and DanceViewTimes have changed everything! :cool2:

[Drew]

Well, I find her very knowledgeable and fair. Unlike some of the critics you mention she covers a vast array of performances day-in, day out...She's not writing essays for a weekly. Some aspects of her writing style may be due to editing, since the Times, one suspects, has very particular protocols. Moreover, I admire the fact that Kisselgoff writes very responsably--someone with a more shoot-from-the-hip style writing in the Times could do a lot of damage to an already financially and artistically struggling dance world. I may not always agree with what I read, but I appreciate the thoughtfulness and openness to different "aesthetic" approaches as well as the substantive knowledge of dance history. And she does express opinions, usually well-balanced ones, though sometimes one has to read for them pretty carefully. For a long elegant essay, written after days (or weeks) of mulling a performance over and polishing the prose -- well, I don't look to the daily reviewers. (Though I might well enjoy reading what Kisselgoff would do in that kind of format...) I also can't help but feel that, given what they have to do, daily reviewers are, so to speak, sitting ducks for attack. It can't be an easy job. (P.S. I have been going to the ballet for over three decades.)

[Juliet]

Well, yes, Drew, but can you honestly say that you weren't astounded by that review of Eifman???

I could not believe it. She was not overly effusive about the choreography, to give her her due, but I expected something even a trifle more definite. Fair is fine, waffling is not.

I was very disappointed.

[dirac]

I'm inclined to agree with Drew. The difference in requirements for daily and weekly reviewers have been well rehearsed here, although Drew summarized them very well, so I won't rehash the topic. In Kisselgoff's case, these requirements are exacerbated by holding such a visible and powerful position. She has had to take a lot of heat from others, but I don't think we need to feel sorry for the chief critic of the Times. (I see few if any of the performances Kisselgoff does, so I can only go by what she writes.) Maybe not the world's most exciting writer, but there are worse problems for a critic to have, and she does know a great deal and imparts that information to her readers responsibly.

[Ray]

I'm a big fan of reasonable and responsible writing. But I'm still not convinced Kisselgoff always delivers the evidence for her stance (the Eifman review being the latest case in point). I read the other daily critics in the Times and I have to say most of them hold my attention better than Kisselgoff does, even on topics I am only marginally interested in. I know she sees a lot of performances, but I imagine the theater and music critics do too--and the book critics read a lot of books, etc. And can you imagine the heat a music critic has to take if he or she reviews the Met Opera negatively? (I bet Volpe can be a SCARY dude!) I read her because I want to know what's going on, not because I expect any insight, argument, or investigation into the content or context of a given performance. If it is there, I am pleasantly surprised. That to me is a sad statement to make about *any* critic, daily, weekly, or occasional.

Why shouldn't we expect more from one of the greatest papers in the country?

Here's a related question none of us may be able to answer, fanatical as we all are: how does AK--or any major dance critic--read to a non-dance person?

P.S. What to make of the fact that AK has never published in any other format (to the best of my knowledge)? That is, she has never even *tried* to go beyond the constraints of daily reviewing. Like Drew, I'm interested in what she would sound like in a more expansive venue. I *know* there's a lot of dance-watching acumen there, somewhere.

[Drew]

Actually when I referred to daily critics as sitting ducks for attack I didn't mean by people in the arts world, I meant by other critics and people like us. (Of course, it goes with the territory.) Kisselgoff did write the preface or introduction to Nijinska's _Early Memoirs_, something I haven't had a chance to read, and over the course of her career has done interviews ... (and for all I know other types of features as well). Anyway, I know people have very different reactions to what they read--especially on topics they care about--I enjoy reading her reviews.

[cargill]

Once, when I had way too much time on my hands, I went back and reread all of Kisslegoff's Diamond Project reviews--I ws puzzled by a remark she made summing up the last one to the effect that finally it seemed to be on track, since I hadn't remembered her ever saying it was off track. I have to say that it seemed that she pulled all her punches--it seemed that after every DP season, she said something to the effect that "finally, it seems to be working"--she praised the ida that they were all crammed into one week at one time, and then the next project, praised the fact that finally the new ballets were spread out over the entire season, that kind of thing. "Whatever is, is right" seemed to be her motto. In addition, she is the one who wrote (I am quoting just from memory) something to the effect that Nilas Martins was the great classical ballet dancer at NYCB--at a time when Boal and Hubbe were at their peak!

[Drew]

I remember her phrase as something more along the lines of Nilas Martins being the purest classical stylist in the company -- I still don't think I would agree, but it was definitely more precisely phrased than "greatest classical ballet dancer."

[carbro]

I find that the best way to understand her is to figure out what she doesn't say, or as in Drew's illustration above, what she doesn't quite say.

I believe that a lot of attention to audience approval generally means, "They may have liked it, but I didn't."

Similar to Cargill's observation about K'goff's Diamond Project pieces, I remember how, throughout Baryshnikov's tenure as AD at ABT, she could find no fault in the changes he made. Then, after he left, she wrote an appreciation that finally acknowledged some of his failings.