Macaulay article on NYCB dancers/Nutcracker

[Krystin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/arts/dan....html?ref=dance

A couple of days ago Macaulay wrote an article discussing some of NYCB's principals and soloists performances in The Nutcracker. He had some kind words for Kathryn Morgan, who hasn't even been dancing because of an injury, as well as some harsh words for NYCB's newest soloist Erica Pereira. He had positive and negative comments for Janie Taylor. It makes me wonder how difficult it is for dancers to read harsh criticisms of the work they put so much heart and time into.

I've been reading Macaulay's reviews in The NY Times for about a year now (I'm sure there are other BTers who have been reading them for much longer) and he seems to be the critic most willing to share negative opinions. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, its just interesting to me.

[abatt]

"The company now has no fewer than 30 principals, though it is expected to announce some retirements during its remaining winter season."

McCauley made the above statement in the article. He seems to be aware that additional retirements other than Kistler will be announced soon.

[miliosr]

"The company now has no fewer than 30 principals, though it is expected to announce some retirements during its remaining winter season."

McCauley made the above statement in the article. He seems to be aware that additional retirements other than Kistler will be announced soon.

My eyes bulged out when I saw that number -- that represents nearly one-third of the roster. Historically, is that the largest number ever on both a numerical and a percentage basis?

[kfw]

I read Macaulay's comments on Pereira not as harsh but as hopeful, constructive criticism, but opinions on his writing do differ! Some of those opinions can be read on an earlier thread, Time for a progress report on Alistair Macaulay?

[BSS]

Macaulay had some kind words for Kathryn Morgan, who hasn't even been dancing because of an injury, as well as some harsh words for NYCB's newest soloist Erica Pereira. He had positive and negative comments for Janie Taylor. It makes me wonder how difficult it is for dancers to read harsh criticisms of the work they put so much heart and time into.

I've been reading Macaulay's reviews in The NY Times for about a year now (I'm sure there are other BTers who have been reading them for much longer) and he seems to be the critic most willing to share negative opinions. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, its just interesting to me.

I have been involved with dance some 20 years now and can tell you this most dancers do not even read what the critics have to say!!!!! As far as Mr Macaulay

i can say i have read many of his reviews and he always has his favorites. The dancers he likes, in his eyes can do no wrong point taken his comments about Kathryn. I have never seen him say a negative comment about her dancing. On the other hand he seems to thrive on tearing down anyone he does not like. I personally find Mr Macaulay obtuse and mean.

[leonid17]

Macaulay had some kind words for Kathryn Morgan, who hasn't even been dancing because of an injury, as well as some harsh words for NYCB's newest soloist Erica Pereira. He had positive and negative comments for Janie Taylor. It makes me wonder how difficult it is for dancers to read harsh criticisms of the work they put so much heart and time into.

I've been reading Macaulay's reviews in The NY Times for about a year now (I'm sure there are other BTers who have been reading them for much longer) and he seems to be the critic most willing to share negative opinions. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, its just interesting to me.

I have been involved with dance some 20 years now and can tell you this most dancers do not even read what the critics have to say!!!!! As far as Mr Macaulay

i can say i have read many of his reviews and he always has his favorites. The dancers he likes, in his eyes can do no wrong point taken his comments about Kathryn. I have never seen him say a negative comment about her dancing. On the other hand he seems to thrive on tearing down anyone he does not like. I personally find Mr Macaulay obtuse and mean.

I generally enjoy reading Alistair Macaulay's reviews from New York.

As to favourites, do you mean that he admires certain dancers and not others based on his fairly wide experience of viewing ballet over three decades on two continents?

[LiLing]

Here is my reaction as a former dancer. Yes, I did read reviews, as did my co. colleagues. Even the mildest negative comment hurts. If it is a critic you respect, you try to consider it, it may be helpful. If you think the critic is wrong, you try to ignore it, but it is painful. Your friends can tell you Mr. X is an idiot, other reviews may be glowing, but that negative comment is still out there in print for all the world to see, including readers who didn't see the performance to judge for themselves.

Choreographers and artistic directors read reviews as well, and they can influence their perception of a dancer.

Of course as a performer, you put yourself in a position to be reviewed, and it is the critics job to give an honest evaluation. I cringed at Mr. Macaulay's comments on Ms Pereira et al, because I know how I would feel if it were me, but I don't think he was out of line or overly subjective.

[aurora]

As to favourites, do you mean that he admires certain dancers and not others based on his fairly wide experience of viewing ballet over three decades on two continents?

I am sure that is what it is based on. And I have favorites too (but I am not a professional critic). That doesn't make it objective of course, other people of taste and experience don't think as well of some of his favorites, and actually like some dancers he has taken a dislike to.

The problem I have regarding Macaulay and his favorites is that it is almost to a point where you don't need to read the reviews if a certain dancer is going to be mentioned. If Corey Stearns (I'm ambivalent) or David Hallberg (who I like very much) is dancing, one might as well not bother reading, because the review will be nothing but superlatives. I certainly don't want him to be cutting or cruel to these dancers, I think they are good (in the case of the former) and excellent (in the case of the latter) but Macaulay just gushes.

I also found it interesting that he spent so much time in what was ostensibly a write up of rising stars in this year's Nutcracker to a dancer who was out due to injury. That is lovely for Kathryn Morgan, but he certainly did not do the same for the other promoted dancer out with injury. He gave Morgan perhaps the best review of the piece based on statements like "if I remember correctly," and to me that is odd.

[BSS]

Macaulay had some kind words for Kathryn Morgan, who hasn't even been dancing because of an injury, as well as some harsh words for NYCB's newest soloist Erica Pereira. He had positive and negative comments for Janie Taylor. It makes me wonder how difficult it is for dancers to read harsh criticisms of the work they put so much heart and time into.

I've been reading Macaulay's reviews in The NY Times for about a year now (I'm sure there are other BTers who have been reading them for much longer) and he seems to be the critic most willing to share negative opinions. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, its just interesting to me.

I have been involved with dance some 20 years now and can tell you this most dancers do not even read what the critics have to say!!!!! As far as Mr Macaulay

i can say i have read many of his reviews and he always has his favorites. The dancers he likes, in his eyes can do no wrong point taken his comments about Kathryn. I have never seen him say a negative comment about her dancing. On the other hand he seems to thrive on tearing down anyone he does not like. I personally find Mr Macaulay obtuse and mean.

I generally enjoy reading Alistair Macaulay's reviews from New York.

As to favourites, do you mean that he admires certain dancers and not others based on his fairly wide experience of viewing ballet over three decades on two continents?

Your comment is well taken and based on his wide experience of and here is the word VIEWING!!!!! NOT EVER DANCING A SINGLE STEP I WOULD SAY HE IS OBTUSE AND MEAN!!!!!!!!

[vipa]

Your comment is well taken and based on his wide experience of and here is the word VIEWING!!!!! NOT EVER DANCING A SINGLE STEP I WOULD SAY HE IS OBTUSE AND MEAN!!!!!!!!

I agree with a lot that has been said. He can be obtuse (what was he talking about with Janie Taylor?) and at the very least dismissive. I also agree that he gushes over certain dancers. David Hallberg is an example. We all admire Hallberg but he is not perfect in every role. I'm sure you will never read a word of criticism from Macaulay about Hallberg ever. Also, Morgan (a talented dancer) why waste precious space on a dancer who was injured and therefore not seen?

On the other hand there are times when his writing is insightful and even poetic. He is one of the few "serious" dance critics we have now (I wish Acocella wrote more on dance in New Yorker). I, personally, never doubt his love of dance. I'll take the good with the bad, but I do see the good. Also, I know for a fact if you email him respectfully (disagree or not) he will respond in a thoughtful way.

[bart]

Thanks, kfw, for linking to that earlier thread. I'm one who finds his comments on individual dancers and performances to be strange at times. On the other time, I think he is the most thoughtful ballet writer we have in the daily press. I'm grateful that the Times gives him so much space for his more serious essays.

Is it possible that Macaulay's strengths lie, not in the area of specific performance reviews, but more in terms of larger topics expressed in longer, thematic essays?

[carbro]

Is it possible that Macaulay's strengths lie, not in the area of specific performance reviews, but more in terms of larger topics expressed in longer, thematic essays?

You mean, as in the thematic essay now under discussion? Incidentally, Macaulay's lead reads: "In October New York City Ballet announced the promotion of six dancers, five of them to principal — Tyler Angle, Robert Fairchild, Tiler Peck, Amar Ramasar and Teresa Reichlen — and one, Kathryn Morgan, to soloist. On Christmas Eve it also announced the promotion of Erica Pereira to soloist." He doesn't mention Nutcracker until paragraph 3, "But I wanted to check out the look of these recently promoted dancers in familiar and ultra-classical repertory. The only chance to date has been the company's six-week annual run of "George Balanchine's 'The Nutcracker' " Reporters and critics do not write their own headlines (here "Newest Stars Try Cracking Holiday 'Nut'"). Macaulay was not summing up the Nutcracker season but assessing the upcoming generation. The editor who supplied the title changed readers' expectations of what we were about to read.

I think Erica Pereira is a delightful dancer bursting with promise, but I do not disagree with Macaulay's assessment of her. He might have couched it in softer language. After criticizing her, he states, "Since she's still a mere teenager, with many roles ahead of her, it's fair to hope that she'll mature into a valuable artist." Basically, he saying that there's nothing wrong with her that some experience and good guidance can't repair. I don't know of many dancers who are complete artists before they're out of their teens.

I don't read all the reviews. I used to, but long ago I realized that I have my prejudices and the critics have theirs, and I could predict their reviews as well as I could my own. I even went so far as to send a letter to one saying, basically, "Before you describe the company as [blah, blah blah], I suggest you look closely at their [x, y and z]." And you know what? She did, conceding in her review my points numbers 1 and 2 but not 3.

[bart]

Is it possible that Macaulay's strengths lie, not in the area of specific performance reviews, but more in terms of larger topics expressed in longer, thematic essays?

You mean, as in the thematic essay now under discussion?

I see your point and should have expressed myself more clearly. Although the essay is organized around a theme, it is when Macaulay gives examples, talking about individual dancers -- including those favored (or not) by those who know them -- that he seems to get into trouble.

Macaulay, as the dance critic for what has become a national newspaper, has more than one function. One of his jobs, of course, is to speak to the New York City audience. Another is to address to a larger audience (national and international) which lacks his own access to such a wide range of performances in New York City, but probably has its own data base of ballet experience in other areas. It is here that his viewing experience, knowledge of ballet history, and personal clearly expressed personal aesthetic (whether one agrees with it or not) is extremely useful.

Inevitably, this second audience (a secondary market, if you will) will be unfamiliar with many of the dancers he writes about. This is especially true of NY City Ballet dancers, many of whom are more or less invisible on video and on tour. (For example, while regulars at Lincoln Center will be familiar with the nuances of Ms. Perreira's performance history, many others will not even have heard of her.)

When Macaulay comments on these dancers, and especially if he forms idees fixes about them, he runs the risk of being contradicted by ballet goers who may actually know the individual dancer's work better than he does. In these cases, it is the local audience which must respond, as is being done on right now on this thread.

Macaulay may be wrong (or right) about his taste in individual dancers. Is there a feeling, however, that he wrong-headed in larger matters?

[Michael]

The pas in Nutcracker is an odd one to judge a dancer on. It's very "posey"and formal; proceeds from pose to pose without a lot of developing kinetic tension in between. The hardest thing in it is that moment when the ballerina dives into a turning arabesque on point without support, and the partner rushes in late to catch her by the wrists -- everyone I've seen in the company has been very very very cautious with that this season - cautious to the point where you don't really recognize the step.

I suppose Balanchine, in making that pas so stiff and formal, was reproducing the pas he remembered from the Imperial Theater of his training -- but for something to judge adagio dancing by, it's not a very useful standard of comparison in a repertory that includes everything from Diamonds, to Agon, to Barocco, Scotch Symphony, etc...