sz originally posted these comments in the Links section:

Given the fact that he reviewed so few performances, you wonder how he could consider himself qualified to do a wrap up. I recall that he wrote a somewhat kindly review of the opening night of Giselle but I have some doubts as to whether he even attended the performance. He certainly was not sitting in the NYT's assigned seat that night. He writes like he wants out of his job or else into an employee assistance program.

His final sentence galls me.

That last line really got on my nerves too.

I'm looking forward to reading what ABT regulars think.

I've read all the threads on ABT's Met season, though have Sleeping Beauty this year. Macaulay's most positive comment is:But .. and there's always a "but" ... :
Most Ballet Talk posts about the Met season have indeed focused on individual performances, many of which sound exceptional and memorable. Reading between the lines of all those threads, however, I've wondered about the larger context in which these dancers perform. Many posts on Ballet Talk -- and, similarly, reviews on DanceViewTimes, seem to have shared Macaulay's ambivalence.

It's obviously according to what one is looking for how you perceive this article. I thought the long, mostly favourable account of ABT's SB in that matinee performance, esp. comparing it to RB's--which I've never heard anybody else do, although maybe they do; my impression is that RB's SB is close to sacred, including here at BT, and that the ABT one is something people put up with--was very interesting. Certainly very unpredictable and thought-provoking. That silly last sentence is the kind of thing he seems to like to do--just flippant crap, doesn't mean anything, maybe that's like 'Aren't I cute' or something a child would do. But, frankly, although I don't have the insider's knowledge to judge it in many important ways, this was often a very well-written piece, and the profiles of the male dancers and their less-impressive (in number) female counterparts is all right. I thought the way he contrasted a couple of Corella's performances was useful for someone like me who isn't usually worried if somebody is too dazzling. The Kirov things he wrote were more negative in some ways, or it seemed to me; but I'm sure I didn't read all of them. I don't see what the big deal is if he thinks somebody smiles too much. Almost everybody went on about Somova's 'vulgarity'. I mean---I don't like him (how would that be done with any of these critics?), but sometimes he's not bad at all.

I read the review and found the tone smug and condescending typical of Brits... Is he a Brit?

The last line was so incredibly dismissive of all the wonderful artists at ABT, were I McKenzie I would ban him from the theater.

He's a educated and clever wordsmith, but he I am OK not reading his swill.

Oh yeah, this caught my eye, and surprised me, because I had gotten this very sensation from one of the Kirov DVDs I watched sometime during the year--not sure if it was the Kolpakova or Lezhnina, but the Queen seemed to show so little gried of any kind, whether or not royal and pallid, that I thought maybe she already knew that it was just going to be a long time and decided to be matter-of-fact about something she couldn't reverse. So this sensation of the Queen's almost dismissive attitude about 'poor daughter's' curse is not only at ABT. Anybody notice this in various productions? I tried to not think about it from the Kirov because there wasn't anything else I didn't like, so I just chalked it up to my not knowing the conventions. But I did not think the Queen had any serious grief at all on one of these DVDs.

"Which makes it the more frustrating that large parts of this “Beauty” tapestry are threadbare. If there is a single moment that should pierce the heart in this story, it’s when Aurora, after pricking her finger and dancing in fatal delirium, falls down lifeless. But here the Queen makes her way with ladylike decorum to what she assumes is her daughter’s corpse; her subsequent display of pallid, polite royal grief is bland. In ways like this Ballet Theater’s “Beauty” keeps saying, “Oh, but you don’t believe this story, do you?”

He wrote, "Sarah Lane can sometimes steal a show with the charming radiance of her dancing in brief solos, but her New York debut as Aurora, opposite Mr. Cornejo, was so unvaryingly sweet — her smile seemed painfully locked in place — that I want to wait to see how she’ll be now that all the ordeal of a Met debut is past." He's looking forward to the future Auroras from this "charmingly radian[t]" dancer under less nerve-wracking circumstances. Sounds to me less like damning with faint praise than its opposite.

I do expect the critics to have a greater tolerance than the consumers they're addressing for night after night of the same production. So when the pros start whining about too much of the same old stuff, it's time for management to consider its programming.

I haven't reread the preseason posts, but my guess is that there were more than a couple that pretty much summed up the season in much the way Macaulay did, even before Kevin's welcome speech at the opening night gala. Other than debuts and the new Tharp, the only unknowns were the cast changes. Oh, and for me, the stellar work of the corps in Giselle, the company's best staging.

But you have to look at who the "pros" are and be careful not to lump a Macaulay in with someone like Clive Barnes. There are people who get paid to write and then there are the "pros". Macaulay is the former, and Barnes is the latter. Macaulay subscribes to the Judith Miller/Jayson Blair scripture that you write whatever you need to write in order to get attention. Insight and accuracy and level mind have nothing to do with the work at hand.

Macaulay went to and reviewed very few of the ABT performances this year and even managed to review one he may not have attended. On the other hand, Barnes didn't just come to the first performance of a production for his review; he kept coming back night after night to see different casts who he knew he would not be reviewing. This is a man who loves ballet. Macaulay doesn't love ballet. It's a job. Just look at him the next time you see him in a theatre. Body language and flushed red face tell it all. That Macaulay would say that ABT does not have major artistic value is little more than butt-inine, arrogant, ego-vomit from someone who is drunk on power, or whatever.

I have no ambivilence toward ABT's productions. We're lucky to have them. If people don't agree, don't go to them. It says something when people just keep going to productions they claim to hate and then can't wait to launch into a tirade about them.

I'd still like to know something about the Sleeping Beauty things he brings up vis-a-vis ABT and Royal Ballet. Anybody surprised to hear what is the most positive report I've yet heard on the Burger King production? Did it surprise no one else to hear a performance of Royal Ballet called 'dispiriting' by comparison to the Burger King? Not that I don't trust certain BTers more on how awful it is even improved, but this did give me second thoughts. I think plenty of critics I know have gross body language(s) and many write as if they had red faces (one was appearing just last week, it seems), but I'm not sure that's always seriously affects the work. Christopher Hitchens always has a red face, but even though so furious half the time he almost seems as if to become violent, I'd still rather read him than a lot of the fools. I think I'm allergic to all professional critics--men and women alike.

I think "Burger King" production is no longer an apt description because they have replaced the Burger King costume.

Very sweet of you, Carbro, to quote Alastair's comments in full. "Charming radiance" is how I would describe Sarah's dancing too, so thank you for reminding me of that.

I guess I got all emotional and upset because I didn't understand why Alastair would wait for over a month to bring up Sarah's Aurora debut whatsoever in this very ambivalent wrap-up review, if he was going to wait to see her in the role again before really commenting.

And yet two-thirds of his review was about the Sleeping Beauty production. He wrote about the production earlier this season in much detail. That's what I thought was lazy. Yes, it's much easier to find and write about faults than to tell readers what and why something was especially good... Surely, Alastair was invited to see many other ballets at ABT, and I wanted to hear his thoughts on most, if not all of them, and hear his views of the many dancers involved, not just principals. I think ambivalence happens when there isn't enough knowledge or word-count to go into more intimate, technical, artistic details. Yes, Herman jumps and lands nicely, quietly, but what else about his jumps are so amazing?! I wish Alastair had written more than just the obvious.

No, I don't think it was ABT's best season ever. Following the Kirov's visit was a huge challenge. If NYCB's season had been better overall, only a two-or-three week celebration of Jerry.... One had only to compare the programs the Kirov chose over the ones ABT/NYCB cast and marketed. The Kirov was diverse and exciting. (I only missed the Forsythe.) ABT's season was rather predictable as was most of NYCB's. Not their best. Still I can't imagine what purpose Alastair had in mind calling ABT's season a "so-what." Herman's debuts alone were extraordinary.

Well, Haglund's was still talking about it recently, expressing gratitude and delight to the BTer who coined the phrase. I think there was still some Burger King left (and if not, then fine), but my point was not to describe the production disparagingly, but to find out something about why Macauley thought it seemed to work in many more ways than most have noted. But perhaps this is of little interest since most of the Macauley threads are about how best to point out how awful he is--which he may be in some ways, but some of the things he said in this article were just very good, and I hadn't heard them before.

This sounds a bit like some right-wing "America, love it or leave it" argument. It is possible to love ballet enough to want to see even unsuccessful productions or second-rate performances, because the potential for being moved by the art is always there. Expressing ones view, including disappointment, is no reason not to go. Besides, the New York Times is paying Alastair Macaulay to express his views. If his opinions upset you so much, don't read them.

This is interesting, because reading Macaulay's ABT reviews this season I've actually thought that he's tuned down the vitriol a couple of notches, almost as if he's taken note of his reviewers.

I agree with some of his criticisms of ABT and disagree with others but while he couldn't resist taking a gratuitous swipe or 2 it seems to me that he's presented some balanced arguments this time, praising the good and pointing out the bad. Sarah Lane really did smile way too much in Beauty - but he's making more of it than I would have. On the other hand he did point out that he's looking forward to see how her interpretation develops. There's more balance and less outright bitchiness in this review than I recall from him previously, certainly less venom than he spewed at the Kirov earlier this year.

I really hate it when he gets bitchy, but I don't expect a professional reviewer to be a cheerleader either. ABT does some things very well, but there are lots of other things that they could improve upon and I agree with many of Macaulay's criticisms.

The only thing I disagree about completely is their choice of rep for the Met season. My only complaints over the past couple of seasons were with their novelties - like Cinderella & Merry Widow and the approach they take with their productions of the classics - their streamlining & dumbing down. I want to see the classics every single season. I'd prefer to see the classics done by a variety of companies - but unfortunately we don't have that opportunity in NY anymore - it's pretty much ABT or nothing (let's not even discuss NYCB's SL, SB or R+J). This is why some of us go see multiple performances of productions that are far inferior to world class productions of the same ballets - short of constant globetrotting they are our only option.

"As long as you don’t set your expectations too high, as long as you don’t ask ballet to be great or important or seriously beautiful, American Ballet Theater is remarkably efficient at delivering the goods"

I hate to say it, but this sums up my feelings about ABT pretty accurately over the past couple of years. There were some individual performances that were wonderful, but I've found most of their productions and many of their dancers to be very mediocre lately.

My feeling about this season is that Kevin shot his fiscal load last year with the expensively disastrous "Sleeping Beauty" premiere and the costly retuning and refitting this year. So basically all there was money for was a short Tharp ballet with no scenery and basic costumes (Twyla don't come cheap though).

So basically everything else were retreads of old material we have seen before with much of the casting we have seen before. Nice way to catch up on some favorite dancers in some roles you missed them in but no real revelations with the exception of Sarah Lane and Herman Cornejo's major new assumptions. I agree with Susan about the company depending on its star dancers to add interest in their season rather than ambitious repertory or daring experimentation. Kevin I think has borrowed all the full-length ballets he can (the Crankos, Ashton's Sylvia, Othello, the Merry Widow, etc.) from other companies. Not that I am complaining about this but eventually some novelties will have to be found. Since the company doesn't have a resident choreographer, this is a problem - basically they are a boutique importing other companies choreography. However, this really only applies to the Met season which frankly isn't suited to chamber ballets or experimentation. I don't know how he can look at the City Center season and dismiss that programming as lacking seriousness.

It is also quite obvious that Macauley only saw Veronika Part as the Lilac Fairy but skipped her Nikiya (reviewed by a second stringer) and her Odette/Odile. So he is dismissing her for "posiness" based on his reservations about one performance - which many here thought definitive. He is entitled to his opinion but he didn't see the full range of her work this season at ABT. On the other hand, he didn't bitchily dismiss her as "boring" which is what he has done in the past but acknowledged her ballerina potential. The "Merry Widow" revival was largely superbly performed though you can quibble about the quality of the piece. Bon-bons do have their place at the table as well as more substantial fare.

I wasn't drawing that distinction. I was referring to those who get paid to sit in their seats with their eyes and ears -- and minds, I hope -- open. And I don't think it's possible to conclude that just because a review doesn't run under some critic's byline, even if we do not see them in their customary seat, that they missed a performance. The Met's a big place, and The Times is a finite publication. Of course, if they are spotted elsewhere during the performance, that's another story.

I'd say you're probably right, except that ABT's pattern of programming for the Met season has become consistently . . . uh, consistent. If we're really lucky, we might get two mixed bills, but lately only one. Three to five full lengths from the 19th Century (one might be a "new production" -- perish the thought!), MacMillan's Romeo and/or Manon (rarely neither), and something frothy and not too strenuous for the corps (this year, Merry Widow). There's your ABT season at the Met!

Given such mechanical programming, if I may read into Macaulay's tag line, "Why does Ballet Theater seem to take ballet less seriously than I do?" I hear, "If you're going to offer such a conservative menu, you better make sure the productions stand up artistically."

He didn't. He was reviewing the Met season.

I have to say, I was impressed that he included her with the ABT ballerinas, when he specifically did *not* mention several principals and was downright hostile to several others (Paloma and Xiomara). I was also surprised he seemed more willing to be well disposed to her than in the past (I remember the boring comment as well).

Given his past treatment of her, his comment on her, caveat notwithstanding, was one of the few surprises of his summing up.

That could be a description of Barnes' predecessor at the Times, Allen Hughes, who was a music critic who would clearly rather have been reviewing the Philharmonic (any Philharmonic) than any ballet.

But invective, whether coming from a critic, or a critic's critic, is a very weak form of discussion, and not a competent, relevant or material argument.

Doesn't most of this come down to liking critics who say nice things about dancers, ballets and companies we like, and trashing those who ignore or write mean things about the dancers, ballets and companies dear to us? The fact that Macaulay didn't go see some performances by Part means nothing -- that's why the Times has more than one critic. He can base his view of her "posiness" on the performance he did see, plus the many others he saw her give at other times. Trying to "prove" his worth, or lack of it, as a critic instead of admitting that this is almost purely an emotional response to his writing doesn't seem worth the time.

>>Doesn't most of this come down to liking critics who say nice things about dancers,
>>ballets and companies we like, and trashing those who ignore or write mean things
>>about the dancers, ballets and companies dear to us?

No. When I read a *paid* critic's review, I expect to read a substantial opinion, details and more details of what dancers are doing and how they are doing it along with opinions of the production as a whole. I'm not looking for someone to validate my own opinion.

Alastair has no problem discussing the pros and cons of ABT's new Sleeping Beauty production in great detail -- he's done it at least three times since the production first premiered. Yet Giselle, still beautiful and very successful, wasn't commented on much, or perhaps I missed a couple of the week's reviews(?!). I'd like to see Alastair discuss the dancing with as much passion ("serious" ness) as he finds clever one-liners.

Agreed. But what about the leading women he did *not* mention? Does Macaulay get any "dance pleasure" from principal dancers Julie Kent or Irina Dvorovenko? I thought it strange that he accused the women of not having the authority to match the men, and then dissected soloists (Lane and Part) without mentioning Kent and Dvorenko who have had more time to develop in the roles.

On a side note: Many reviewers have pointed out some performances he missed (like Part in Bayadere), and of course Alastair can't see 'em all, but having myself seen both Carreno and Gomes in Merry Widow this season, I think it's Gomes who really became the "real star: in that role. He takes the physical comedy of the first act to another level, in my humble opinion.

Yep And love critics who love our favorite dancers, companies and productions

General note in Administrator mode: Please tone down the personal invectives, descriptions, etc. They are out of place in this forum.

I agreed with some of the criticism of ABT set forth in the NY Times article. However, some of it was unnecessarily harsh. In fairness to ABT, not every performance over an 8 week season will be a particularly memorable or great one. No company in the world could accomplish that. Every Beethoven symphony is not considered great (some are merely good); every Picasso is not considered a masterpiece. Similarly, it is unrealistic and unfair to expect every ABT performance to be a brilliant masterpiece for the ages. As a basis for comparison, I attend many performances at the Met Opera each year. Not every night is an "A" night of operatic superstars. In fact, there are lots of "B" nights, but I frequently go to those "B" nights because the quality is very good, if not spectacular. Sure, I would love to be able to see world class dancers like Cojocaru, Lopatkina, Sarafanov, ..... during the MET's ABT season. Even if ABT can't or doesn not wish to hire them, I'm still happy for the opportunity to see the great dancers they do have- Corella, Vishneva, Herman Cornejo, Nina.....

I agreed with some of the criticism of ABT set forth in the NY Times article. However, some of it was unnecessarily harsh. In fairness to ABT, not every performance over an 8 week season will be a particularly memorable or great one. No company in the world could accomplish that. Every Beethoven symphony is not considered great (some are merely good); every Picasso is not considered a masterpiece. Similarly, it is unrealistic and unfair to expect every ABT performance to be a brilliant masterpiece for the ages. As a basis for comparison, I attend many performances at the Met Opera each year. Not every night is an "A" night of operatic superstars. In fact, there are lots of "B" nights, but I frequently go to those "B" nights because the quality is very good, if not spectacular. Sure, I would love to be able to see world class dancers like Cojocaru, Lopatkina, Sarafanov, ..... during the MET's ABT season. Even if ABT can't or doesn not wish to hire them, I'm still happy for the opportunity to see the great dancers they do have- Corella, Vishneva, Herman Cornejo, Nina.....

As a member of the audience (a "spectator," as Suzanne Farrell once put it), don't you go to the theater expecting or at least hoping each performance you're about to see will be great? Why go otherwise? The job of the critic is to call it as he or she sees it - not to make excuses (unless they serve a larger purpose) and not, on the other hand, simply to be witty at others' expense. The broader the critic's experience and understanding, the more we can learn from reading why a performance or a season was unsatisfactory.

I find this summation rather patronizing and vague. What I guess he is driving at is that individual dancers are good but the productions of the classics are spotty and lacking a consistent style. Therefore, it is up to the individual dancers to bring distinction to the repertory. Okay, I'll buy that.

However the dismissive and patronizing tone: "don't set your expections too high" and "would you know that from it's performances? (that ABT is America's national ballet company)" and "The company keeps showing you that, though it could be great, it has deliberately chosen to fall short." Well is that true? You would know that it is a leading ballet company because of the level of the dancing. I don't think that the corps, if not on the POB or Kirov level, is anything to be ashamed of though they vary from production to production depending on the quality of the coaching and staging. Does any company "choose to fall short"? - well they may compromise or dumb down the classics (i.e. "Sleeping Beauty" last year) - but what are these self-destructive or reductive choices?

Also, if "Le Corsaire", "La Bayadere" and "Don Quixote" are all worthless trash with very little appreciable choreographic value, then other top-level international companies share this lack of taste with ABT: the Kirov, the Bolshoi, the Paris Opera Ballet and the Royal Ballet for starters. Now you can pick apart these productions individually. The ABT "Le Corsaire" is a musical and choreographic patchwork but it is fun and colorful and a great vehicle for dancers. The Makarova production of "La Bayadere" does attempt within what was available to her in the West to stylistically streamline and complete a work that until the Kirov's reconstruction of the 1900 version was performed incomplete in Russia and has character and exotic dancing that might not go over with Western audiences and many ballet companies aren't equipped to effectively restage. A better recension might be made from the complete 1900 version and the original orchestrations used instead of the Lanchbery reorchestration and ersatz Act IV but it is a good workable staging. I can't believe you can dismiss the "Kingdom of the Shades" with one flick of the wrist. Tobi Tobias was similarly dismissive of performing these ballets complete in her articles in New York magazine in the 90's basically saying that outside of the "Kingdom of the Shades" everything else in "La Bayadere" is worthless. I don't agree - I even love the kitsch elements and the classical purity of the "Shades" is like a beautiful oasis in a wild landscape of exoticism and yes, even camp and 19th century oriental kitsch. "Don Quixote" has its share of magnificent choreography.

However, the tendency to dismiss the ballets of Minkus, Glazunov, Pugni et al. as dispensable fluff while the Petipa/Ivanov/Tchaikovsky collaborations are sacrosanct doesn't begin with Macauley. Dame Ninette di Valois was interviewed during the BBC relay of the Kirov "Raymonda" with Kolpakova in the early 80's. She decried the revival of what she felt were minor and marginal works - "Raymonda" included - and stressed that the Tchaikovsky ballets were the real jewels and everything else was paste. Well, I love costume jewelry too as well as diamonds if they are put together with taste and style.

Quote: "But this season, like every Ballet Theater season I've ever watched since I first saw the company in 1977, bequeathed another, larger but much vaguer impression: whenever Ballet Theater starts to be artistically of major value, something makes it fall short." unquote

Well, how is let's say the Royal Ballet or the Kirov or the NYCB doing better? How or why do they outperform ABT in serious artistic achievement? Why isn't ABT serious about ballet? - they present a wider repertory of classical, neoclassical and even some modern dance than almost any other company in the world. I admit that lacking a great, living choreographer creating important new works for the company as Ballet Theater did in the 1940's and 50's with Tudor and DeMille and NYCB with Balanchine and Robbins is a major demerit. But outside of let's say, Ratmansky and the Bolshoi (and not for long) or Eifman and his company (if you consider him great, I like some of his stuff) almost every other international company suffers from the same problem. Lots of great dancers, not many great choreographers and the art form in a kind of transitional, eclectic mode not knowing where to develop next.

So Macauley patronizes and dismisses these awfully ambitious but hopeless colonials for falling short of great art but manages to drop a few compliments to certain dancers. How nice of him.

BTW: Clive Barnes deeply loves ballet and has since his early youth when he might have been one of those poor students in the high balcony cheap seats in the movie "The Red Shoes". Anna Kisselgoff had a long and informed history with all the New York dance companies and the foreign ones as well. But she wasn't a partisan of one company over another, loved each company for its own qualities even as they changed over time and remained enthusiastic about "Don Quixote" or "Symphony in C" even after having seen it dozens of times. Macauley sounds terribly jaded and tired in comparison. He isn't afraid to drop his opinions and allude to a vague set of standards that he is sure aren't being met but no specific vision of what is missing.

As a member of the audience (a "spectator," as Suzanne Farrell once put it), don't you go to the theater expecting or at least hoping each performance you're about to see will be great? Why go otherwise?


Of course I always hope that a performance will be "great", but I don't expect that every single night will be incredible. I recognize that many performances will merely be pretty good. Even if the performance is merely good, I usually feel that I have spent my time and money well to see something I enjoyed. There were only a few instances where I thought that the performance was so bad that I should have stayed home. Ballet is art, but it is also entertainment. When it achieves greatness, it is a transcendent experience. However, as a general rule I don't feel disappointed if the performance was merely "good" or merely entertaining. As nysusan said above, ABT is the only game in our town for the classics. Maybe if I could attend regular performances of the Royal, the Kirov, the Bolshoi and the Paris Opera Ballet here in NYC every year, I would view the situation differently. As things stand, though, I'm happy to have the opportunity to see ABT for 8 weeks at the MET every year- even if not every one of the performances I attend is a life altering, earth shattering performance. If Alistair McCauley thinks ABT is so mediocre, he should put his money where his mouth is by writing ABT a huge check so that Kevin can hire the top dancers from each one of the world's top companies. Let's appreciate the cultural riches we New Yorkers have in our backyard.

Mr. Macauley is English. As I only attend a few performances (mostly at City Center) of ABT each year (as opposed to going to NYCB 2-4 times a week in season), I can't comment on his ABT piece.
I can say that he was a very well respected theatre and dance critic in London.

I love what Mr. B said about the British critics: "If you're awake it's already vulgar."

Ironically, it's American dance critics now who are perceived as conservative and narrowly focused, at least by their European colleagues. Macaulay's lack of enthusiasm for some of ABT's biggest hits - Don Q and Corsaire -- is shared by an awful lot of serious European critics I've read.

On the other hand, his likes and dislikes as far as ballerinas are concered seems strangely personalized. In this article, at least, he tries to get away with stock phrases -- "efficient," "unvaryingly sweet," "a tendency to posiness", "her smile ... painfully locked in place" -- instead of thoughtful analysis.

(I realize that he was under the constraint of limited space.)

It does seem that Macaulay is expressing an ill-defined (though never explained) vision of of what constitutes "authority" in dancing and what taking ballet "seriously" actually involves.

Boy, what did poor Etudes ever do to deserve "tackily sensationalist and musically repellent"? Or what did ABT do to it?

nothing ABT did to it.
If you read his review of it, he detests the ballet. I don't think it would have mattered how well anyone danced it, he thinks the piece itself is a piece of s__t.

I can't believe he brought Vishneva up three times without any mention of Angelina Jolie.

Speaking as a Londoner I can assure you that as a ballet critic he was actually considerd by many to be a bit of a joke, we're well rid of him.

I have business in London so I'm there frequently. In my circles (publishing/media) Mr. Macauley was indeed very well respected as both a theatre and dance critic. That said, we all have reviewers we like, and reviewers we don't like.

Macaulay on Etudes (from NYT 6/5/08): "It’s much more enjoyable when it’s danced atrociously, the way I used to see it 30 years ago with the London Festival Ballet."

Excuse me, what? I understand that he loathes the ballet, but how could a work that is pretty much about the progression of ballet technique, a technical exercise of sorts, be more enjoyable when dance atrociously? Or perhaps I take ballet more seriously than Mr. Macaulay

That is an appalling slur on Festival Ballet and typical of Macaulay's twisting of the truth to sound clever. Over the years Festival Ballet made this ballet their signature work with dancers such as Galina Samsova, Andrei Prokovsky, Patrice Bart, Margot Miklosy (the fastest chaîné turns I've ever witnessed) and the incomparable John Gilpin among very many others giving superb performances in this gem of a ballet.

I'm sorry but I consider the opinions of this critic to be totally worthless.

>>Doesn't most of this come down to liking critics who say nice things about dancers,
>>ballets and companies we like, and trashing those who ignore or write mean things
>>about the dancers, ballets and companies dear to us?

I don't mean to be arrogant by quoting my own earlier post, but I think it's still valid - especially after this last trashing of A. Macaulay. I disqualify myself from defending him personally, since I've known him for close to 30 years. I never would have guessed, though, that anyone could hold Etudes in such tender regard and so fiercely attack someone for slighting it.

But even the divine Arlene Croce has some reservations about Lander Etudes. The following is from a danceview review by Alexander Meinertz, "Etudes & Danish Modernism."



Anyway, Alastair Macaulay seems to have done a great deal for updance dance in New York in the last two years, giving it an awful lot of thoughtful front page coverage. (Thankfully displacing the inevitable equestrian metaphors of his predecessor, about fillies and dancers feeling their oats and finally getting their spurs.)

Also we seem to live in a very conservative period in dance--there are few new choreographies that possess the stage on fresh ground--and AM's not a conservative.

Yes, but having reservations about a work is not the same as calling the work "ghastly," "appalling," "inane", and "twaddle."
And all that in a review only 1 paragraph long, and mentioning only a single dancer.

What's wrong in principle with finding a ballet, even an often programmed ballet that has lasted for decades, "ghastly," "appalling," "inane", and "twaddle"? Macaulay specifies what he dislikes about it: what he considers its
as well as the fact that it

There is also what he considers perhaps its .
And then there is the .
Agree or disagree (the ballet leaves me cold), but he's shown us the basis for his judgment, and in so doing invited readers who feel differently to examine and perhaps sharpen their own judgment. That's what I want from a critic.

He may have said all those things, explaining his hatred of the ballet, but NOT in the review I cited. Is the reader meant to recall an earlier (?) review of the ballet by a different company (I assume, since this was his only review of ABT in the piece) to put his comments in a proper context?

Thanks, kfw. Macaulay's a pet critic of mine because he shares my opinion (although mine's a bit more moderate) of Etudes.

How long can his reviews be? Unlike us, he has limited space to give his overall take on the season and single out one or two highlights and/or duds for special attention. If he went into such detail for every presentation over the eight weeks, those of us who had not yet lost interest would still be reading his season wrap-up.

>>How long can his reviews be? Unlike us, he has limited space to give his overall take on the season and
>>single out one or two highlights and/or duds for special attention.

Exactly what a wrap-up ought to be: a *limited* review of the *entire* season (or most of it). If Alastair had spent less than 2/3 of his wrap-up talking about Sleeping Beauty which he has already reviewed in much detail a couple of times....then he could have given readers a better overall review. It's certainly unrealistic to expect every ballet and every debut, and every returning star, would be written about, in one article, but I expected better than a "so-what."


p.s. I apologize if I'm repeating myself.... I'm restless, not sleeping, after reading about Japan's earthquake. Fortunately, it was a good distance from where ABT is touring in Tokyo.

May I second Quiggin's point about how much Alastair Macaulay has done for dance coverage (not just ballet. He's in charge of the entire section)
since his arrival? That said, it's his editor that makes the decision about front page coverage (or how much coverage), but he (the editor is a man) thinks highly enough of Mr. Macaulay (and his
staff)
to allow an abundance of dance coverage in the NYT (finally!).
Like EAW, I too disqualify myself from defending him personally (although I don't know him well at all), but I do sit right behind him at the NYCB, and we exchange pleasantries (mostly about London theatre). I can tell you that he is always totally engrossed in each in every performance. I guess that is defending him a bit, but I often disagree with parts of his reviews too. However, I always look forward to reading his pieces -- that is a compliment in my book.

It sounds as if some members of this board would prefer a critic who, to paraphrase Arlene Croce, hands out artificial flowers all around to someone who's not afraid to express bold and sometimes challenging views. For me, bland and timid reporting is not worth reading - I want writing that aims to evoke the vivid sensations and passions of the theater.

I’m just grateful that the collective artistic direction of the Royal Danish Ballet, Paris Opera Ballet, London Festival Ballet-English National Ballet, Kirov, ABT and the other companies who take on the challenge of producing Etudes don’t share Macaulay’s views. There is no doubt that he employs vitriolic bullying to try to drive audiences away from the ballet and companies that perform it. He wants desperately to be an important voice in ballet, but he’s just a loud one.

As for prefering critics who hand out artificial flowers all around, let's not forget the decades that Anna Kisselgoff spent pandering to and writing press for NYCB. More often than not, when writing a review about another company's performance she would reach far for an opening to invoke a reference to Balanchine regardless of its complete lack of connection to the performance being reviewed. The New York Times has for years had a problem filling its chief dance critic position with someone with knowledge, experience, balance, and eloquence. Or perhaps it's been their choice not to do so. But the current slash, flash and dash of Macaulay makes me embarrassed to have ever worked at the Times.

I understand this point, and I agree with it on the whole.

My problem with Macaulay's recent writing is not that he dislikes what so many Ballet Talk people like. His "Emepror Occasionally Has No Clothes" reminders are very useful and -- based on my one small viewing of ABT's Sleeping Beauty this past season -- somewhat deserved.

I think, however, that Macaulay has a higher standard of writing -- language, analysis, use of descriptive example -- when he likes something than when he dislikes it. This IS a problem, and one I assume he is capable of correcting.

Talk about vitriolic .....What evidence do you have that there is "no doubt" Macaulay wants to drive audiences to or away from anything...he's writing about what he sees. And I must have read a different Anna Kisselgoff from the one you did...the one I read was constantly putting Balanchine and his dancers in a little "neoclassical" cubbyhole...and boy, was she not having Suzanne Farrell in anything but the rolse Balanchine made just for her. But why does it make you so angry for someone to call Etudes a lousy ballet?