Jump to content

Snowflake - no, not another Nutcracker review


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

31 minutes ago, Lizbie1 said:

 

I think that this is the most important thing to remember.

 

I guess that, personally speaking, I'm not sure what purpose it serves to comment on this kind of thing if no criticism is implied, unless someone's saying "oh, by the way, this happened, but it was irrelevant".  If someone sent me an email with a typo in it, it would be a bit weird to point that typo out to people around me unless it were a funny one or I were...yes, implying criticism!

 

In the case of Romany Pajdak in Mayerling, I think there was criticism implied, except it was of the wardrobe department.

Does it have to serve a purpose?  Could it not just be what it was intended to be - a comment?  Really, words fail me.  The frustration of it being thought alright to censor anything that could vaguely be implied as critical is just hideous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, penelopesimpson said:

  Must we be so precious about dancers?

 

in one way, yes - they cannot answer to defend themselves.

In another, no - they are, by the nature of their job, pretty robust psychologically. Even so, any criticism needs to be tactfully and politely done because of the above

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, penelopesimpson said:

I kept looking at Matthew the other night for this pretty face.  It is quite classical and reminds me a little of James MacAvoy, but I don't know about pretty.  Having re-read that post, I honestly don't think that any implication was intended.  Must we be so precious about dancers?

 

I responded to that post, what was implied was that he only gets roles because he is easy on the eye.  Either the poster was ignorant of all his work in the company over the past few years or is so politically correct as to believe choice roles should only go to the facially challenged.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reading this thread as I have read several others recently.  Open mouthed with astonishment. 

 

Having been misunderstood on another thread after using a certain word in what I thought was a clearly ironic manner, and then subsequently had my light-hearted attempt at humour savaged by a Moderator in a most public rebuke, I am starting to wonder what on earth is happening on this forum.  

 

Edited by Fonty
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MAB said:

 

That's it.  I prefer a more traditional approach.

 

As do I - funnily enough though, that production was my daughter's first Nutcracker aged 3 or 4 and she was utterly enchanted.  She still has fond memories of seeing what she called "the stripey Grandad Nutcracker".  Horses for courses, eh! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zxDaveM said:

in one way, yes - they cannot answer to defend themselves. 

 

I'll post my thoughts a little later but just out of interest, what's behind the assertion that they can't defend themselves, given that this is a public forum?

 

I'm not suggesting anything either way, I'm just asking because if they have the right to reply but don't exercise it, then that's a slightly different proposition (in the context of this thread) to not having a voice at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dancers may not be 'actually' barred by their companies from commenting, but in practise I think they are strongly discouraged from interacting on forums such as this one. Its unusual that any would comment on a Facebook posting or whatever too. At least, that's my take on it, I don't have any insider information as such - but I can't ever remember an active dancer posting on here defending themselves or colleagues

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a company would be very happy if their dancers engaged in debate on forums.

My contract certainly prevented me from talking to the media and I imagine most jobs now have some such restriction.  It isn't hard to see why if you think about it.

 

So they can't defend themselves- on the other hand they do get an enormous amount of public praise and affection most people will certainly never receive for their work.......

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zxDaveM said:

The dancers may not be 'actually' barred by their companies from commenting, but in practise I think they are strongly discouraged from interacting on forums such as this one. Its unusual that any would comment on a Facebook posting or whatever too. At least, that's my take on it, I don't have any insider information as such - but I can't ever remember an active dancer posting on here defending themselves or colleagues

 

Interesting, thanks. 

 

(As an aside, I'm choosing to appreciated 'barred' as a ballet pun. :))

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fonty said:

I am reading this thread as I have read several others recently.  Open mouthed with astonishment. 

 

Having been misunderstood on another thread after using a certain word in what I thought was a clearly ironic manner, and then subsequently had my light-hearted attempt at humour savaged by a Moderator in a most public rebuke, I am starting to wonder what on earth is happening on this forum.  

 

Me, too, Fonty.  The Commissars have taken over and only sheep are required.  I read some of the comments open-mouthed with astonishment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 2/14/2018 at 14:07, Jan McNulty said:

 ...  I believe in the right of people to publish their opinions but I also believe that there are ways of expressing them.  I sometimes think (and I am not just thinking of this forum) that people do not realise just how brusquely their posts can come across.  The problem with the internet is that you cannot see the person who is writing the comment's facial expression or body language so things that may be meant light heartedly can come across as just plain nasty.

 

I think it is quite acceptable to say that you think a dancer is miscast in a role.  There have been occasions when I have thought the same myself.  I also think it is acceptable to say that a costume is unflattering (and I have seen many) but there are ways of saying these things and ways of saying these things that to others may seem harsh and unnecessary.

 

I would point out that there are dancers and their relatives and friends who, if not members, read the forum and it cannot be pleasant to read personal remarks.

 

We have an acceptable use policy that all members have signed up to and if that is breached then action is taken, but if it is not breached then no action will be taken.  If a member has cause for concern about a post then report it - it's easy enough to do using the report button...

 

6 hours ago, Sim said:

... The last thing that we as moderators want (and we have said this many times) is for this to become a fan site.  That's why we call it a forum.  I am all for everyone being able to say exactly what they think....and in this snowflake world that is becoming less and less possible or tolerated.  So please everyone, keep your impressions coming, both positive and negative;  as long as you all respect each other, and keep within our AUP, all opinions are very welcome here.  And please give each other some slack;  as was pointed out above, what is said in writing can sound very different from how it is meant to sound.  Finally, remember that we are all equally passionate about the art form, and this will lead to deep and differing opinions all round.  

 

I’m screwing up my courage to comment here & I hope that my post comes across in the reflective (not critical) way I’m intending it to.

I agree with Jan & Sim’s general points. I wanted to say the following in addition to the points about the inherent difficulties with posting online.

 

While there’s always going to be:

i) The potential for issues in the way views are expressed in a post on any public forum.

ii)Or the potential for those views to inadvertently come across to others in a way the writer never intended.

iii) Or the way the views expressed in a post are interpreted by any given reader.   

 

My own thoughts on potential ways to help going forward on BcoF, are:

 

1. In cases where a BcoF post/comment has come across rather badly or ambiguously, I’m wondering whether it might be helpful for forum members to first ask the poster to clarify what they meant / if they intended their post to come across in a particular way.  

(This obviously doesn’t apply to situations where a post should clearly be reported to BcoF moderators / is determined to be in breach of this forum’s rules.)

 

2. What I’ve personally found very helpful is that because I’ve had the pleasure of meeting so many forum members at the ROH (whether by accident after getting chatting to the person sat/standing next to me, or during a dedicated rendez-vous), I feel I have a better chance of appreciating where the poster is coming from having met & chatted to them in person.

So I wonder if it would help if members had the ability to informally meet up if they wished to on a regular basis. I appreciated Sim recently advising on The Winter’s Tale thread that the current general BcoF drop-by meeting point is at the bottom of the escalator. The same could potentially be done for other venues (if it isn’t already). And members always have the option to make their own private arrangements to meet up if they prefer, away from the general drop-by meeting point.

 

Anyway, just some ideas.

 

 

Edited by Indigo
An emoji snuck in!
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, penelopesimpson said:

Defend themselves against what, exactly?

 

Any or all of these: Unfair, unconstructive or unnecessary criticism, personal comments.  Fortunately we don't get too much of this behaviour but it does happen sometimes. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BristolBillyBob said:

 

Interesting, thanks. 

 

(As an aside, I'm choosing to appreciated 'barred' as a ballet pun. :))

We're allowed to be no-holds-barred critical about ourselves, I presume, in particular our own seemingly dreadful self-proofreading skills? :rolleyes:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, hesitate - as an occasional poster but avid reader - to jump into this fascinating debate. For what it's worth, my own opinion is that we all pay for our tickets and all therefore have the right to express our opinions, whether we have been going for decades or weeks (I have been watching ballet for 40 years but still my knowledge of the technical side could fit on a postage stamp). I really enjoy reading why people have enjoyed certain performances, but equally interesting is why they haven't been particularly enamoured of dancers in certain roles, choreography, stagings etc. I think what I always try and bear in mind (but don't always succeed) is a discussion on this site a few years ago when Clement Crisp described a dancer as 'irredeemably pedestrian' which seemed incredibly harsh, but if he had said 'irredeemably pedestrian in this particular role', it would have tempered the comment and made the criticism seem a bit gentler. I do hope people won't stop posting comments because I have always found the discussions on this site to be very civilised and fair (even if I occasionally silently bridle at criticism of my own favourites!!).  Looking at some of the below the line comments on mainstream journalism, this site is an absolute haven - and I'd like to add my thanks to those above to the moderators who obviously pay a great deal of care and attention to keeping it so.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sympathies lie with penelopesimpson, Fonty and others, and the Forum would be significantly duller without critical comment and caustic remarks.  I think as others have suggested perhaps it's easier being effusive in praise than being prepared to pass critical comment knowing that others may take exception - are we just too quick to take offence?  Criticism is too easily relegated to what isn't said - dancer a is praised for something that has struck a poster as being particular polished and it may be a lot easier to say nothing about dancer b's performance.  But if people wish to make comparisons it would help enormously if reasons were given for those comparative judgements, otherwise they are simply assertions.

 

I do take seriously the protestations that the Forum should not be a fan club and wonder if there should be a self imposed limit on the number of times posters can use 'wonderful' or 'fabulous'.  I fear with Nutcracker and Giselle,  I've already exhausted my annual allowance.  I was going to say 'like the pollution levels in London' but I'm in danger of crafting a sentence which includes Nutcracker/Giselle and pollution.  But the pollution comparison may well be apt - overuse of 'wonderful', 'fabulous' etc lessens their impact and the words lose meaning, with language itself a victim of pollution.

 

So thanks for the robust comments, let's sharpen our pencils, be slower to take offence ... and still be richly enthusiastic when performance transports us, which on current form is pretty regularly for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnS said:

My sympathies lie with penelopesimpson, Fonty and others, and the Forum would be significantly duller without critical comment and caustic remarks.  I think as others have suggested perhaps it's easier being effusive in praise than being prepared to pass critical comment knowing that others may take exception - are we just too quick to take offence?  Criticism is too easily relegated to what isn't said - dancer a is praised for something that has struck a poster as being particular polished and it may be a lot easier to say nothing about dancer b's performance.  But if people wish to make comparisons it would help enormously if reasons were given for those comparative judgements, otherwise they are simply assertions.

 

I do take seriously the protestations that the Forum should not be a fan club and wonder if there should be a self imposed limit on the number of times posters can use 'wonderful' or 'fabulous'.  I fear with Nutcracker and Giselle,  I've already exhausted my annual allowance.  I was going to say 'like the pollution levels in London' but I'm in danger of crafting a sentence which includes Nutcracker/Giselle and pollution.  But the pollution comparison may well be apt - overuse of 'wonderful', 'fabulous' etc lessens their impact and the words lose meaning, with language itself a victim of pollution.

 

So thanks for the robust comments, let's sharpen our pencils, be slower to take offence ... and still be richly enthusiastic when performance transports us, which on current form is pretty regularly for me.

Oh, John, hope you have a tin hat!  Shelling can be intense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Anna C said:

 

Any or all of these: Unfair, unconstructive or unnecessary criticism, personal comments.  Fortunately we don't get too much of this behaviour but it does happen sometimes. 

Sounds eminently reasonable but I haven’t seen any examples of unacceptably personal comments so the context is baffling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, penelopesimpson said:

Sounds eminently reasonable but I haven’t seen any examples of unacceptably personal comments so the context is baffling.

 

I'm sorry the context is baffling; I'm not really sure how I could be any clearer.  

 

With regard to the personal comments, Matthew Golding was on the receiving end of quite a few.  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Singling out certain dancers for constant criticism (in the case of Golding largely undeserved) always signifies a poster with an agenda to me. 

I'm happy to read a less than flattering opinion but not when someone has made their point but still bangs on about it, for me that is akin to bullying. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want this to become somewhere where people are afraid to express a fair opinion, or even within reason to have a bit of a bitch about something.  I just think there are a few things I'd like to see less of:

  1. People being over-ready to take offence either on their own or others' behalf
  2. As MAB says, persistent criticism of certain dancers, particularly when it's from the same source
  3. Criticism of dancers for something which is outside their control, including casting, costume, appearance and the occasional slip (in the latter case, I guess I just think it's bad form effectively to make it a matter of public record)

I'm not all about good things, rainbows and unicorns - people who know me in real life know I can be pretty scathing (you should have heard me on the subject of Satyagraha at ENO) - but on a public forum it's a good idea to take more care IMO.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Anna C said:

 

I'm sorry the context is baffling; I'm not really sure how I could be any clearer.  

 

With regard to the personal comments, Matthew Golding was on the receiving end of quite a few.  

 

13 minutes ago, MAB said:

Singling out certain dancers for constant criticism (in the case of Golding largely undeserved) always signifies a poster with an agenda to me. 

I'm happy to read a less than flattering opinion but not when someone has made their point but still bangs on about it, for me that is akin to bullying. 

 

Yes, the criticism of MG was very much below a level that I felt comfortable with, especially for this generally very civilised forum.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and without meaning to open this can of worms again: the recurring speculation about whether the ROH marketing department is deliberately pushing Hayward over Naghdi is pretty tedious. Even accepting the premise that one gets more publicity than the other (and I haven't looked into whether this is just perception), I find it hard to believe that this isn't led by the journalists themselves, not least because I've never got the impression that the RB PR machine is exactly hyperactive.  If anyone has any actual evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lizbie1 said:

I don't want this to become somewhere where people are afraid to express a fair opinion, or even within reason to have a bit of a bitch about something.  I just think there are a few things I'd like to see less of:

  1. People being over-ready to take offence either on their own or others' behalf
  2. As MAB says, persistent criticism of certain dancers, particularly when it's from the same source
  3. Criticism of dancers for something which is outside their control, including casting, costume, appearance and the occasional slip (in the latter case, I guess I just think it's bad form effectively to make it a matter of public record)

I'm not all about good things, rainbows and unicorns - people who know me in real life know I can be pretty scathing (you should have heard me on the subject of Satyagraha at ENO) - but on a public forum it's a good idea to take more care IMO.

'Criticism of dancers for something which is outside their control, including casting, costume, appearance and the occasional slip (in the latter case, I guess I just think it's bad form effectively to make it a matter of public record)'

 

And that would leave us with...what, exactly? 

Critiquing a production can surely, legitimately, involve comments on casting, costume, appearance and performance?

Ballet is a visual medium and the aesthetics can often be crucial to how one feels about what one has seen.  I think posters on this site are all sophisticated enough to understand that remarking on a costume does not imply criticism of a dancer.  I also stand by sometimes having reservations about casting of dancers in a particular role (not often, but it can happen.) Again, no criticism of the dancer implied.

As to appearance, I enjoy commenting on how someone looks in their role.  I thought Akane was meltingly exquisite in Giselle and admire Ryochi's immense physicality.  Edward Watson as the Indian in the Arthur Pita work was a stunning creature.  One is hardly going to comment that a dancer has a big nose or anything remotely personal, but dancers can be exquisite creatures that take my breath away and I like to comment to that effect.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, penelopesimpson said:

As to appearance, I enjoy commenting on how someone looks in their role.  I thought Akane was meltingly exquisite in Giselle and admire Ryochi's immense physicality.  Edward Watson as the Indian in the Arthur Pita work was a stunning creature.  One is hardly going to comment that a dancer has a big nose or anything remotely personal, but dancers can be exquisite creatures that take my breath away and I like to comment to that effect.

 

I agree, and about how they look in relation to one another; not "comparing", but for example, I commented yesterday on the additional dimension added to the relationship between Leontes and Polixenes when they were played by Soares and Hirano looking very, very alike indeed.  And I don't think I passed comment on it here, but I remember seeing a pair of mismatched (in terms of body type) dancers in something a couple of seasons ago where I enjoyed watching each dancer individually but the visual effect would have been more satisfying if they'd been more alike in appearance.  It might have been After the Rain - does that have a section for two women side-by-side, in the first section?

 

Edited to add: mismatches like that seem to stand out at the RB as they're comparatively rare; I don't think I'd have noticed to the same degree at for example ENB which has a much wider range of body types.  Whereas the RB in most respects seems to match people together well; for example, when Genesia Rosato was still dancing she'd play the mother roles opposite the shorter male dancers and Elizabeth McGorian would play the same roles opposite the taller ones.  And I can't imagine ever seeing a set of RB Mirlitons or Cygnets in which one dancer is two inches taller than all the others.

Edited by RuthE
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, penelopesimpson said:

'Criticism of dancers for something which is outside their control, including casting, costume, appearance and the occasional slip (in the latter case, I guess I just think it's bad form effectively to make it a matter of public record)'

 

And that would leave us with...what, exactly? 

Critiquing a production can surely, legitimately, involve comments on casting, costume, appearance and performance?

 

 

I think the first phrase of Lizbie1's comment is crucial - if the dancer had/has no control over something, they shouldn't be criticised for it. That doesn't mean that IT shouldn't be criticised if wanted. As someone else said, context is everything. (I'm not sure myself about never mentioning slips; sometimes a slip could mar a crucial moment and so mar a performance. But I don't think it's necessarily necessary to mention them either.)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...