Jump to content

Commenting on reviews


Recommended Posts

Like Janet, I enjoy reading Clement Crisp's reviews (short and pithy) although I often disagree with him. Like "fans", critics all have their own tastes and this is reflected in their reviews. I don't think that I've ever read a critic say something along the lines of "I don't really like this type of choreography and so it is hard for me to assess this performance objectively". I suppose that s/he would be out of a job if s/he did that. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate it if critics were a bit more transparent about their tastes and prejudices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think a very important aspect - perhaps even the most important aspect of reviewing a performance is honesty of approach.

 

Well, one would think that is obvious - but apparently not.

 

When i leave the house on my way to see and then review a performance I ask myself "Am I going with an open mind?"

 

There are occasions when one is more open to attending a theater performance as opposed to wanting to sit comfy at home.

 

Sometimes one is more open to seeing something new rather than something familiar.

 

I remember one very well known dance critic who was the lead writer for a major newspaper (very large city) who after retirement from that publication said how much he/she disliked ballet. Yet for all those years had critiqued ballet performances.

 

There have also been a couple of well known critics who have plagerized their own work (repeating a critique written years ago for another publication.) And, a couple of famous instances when a well respected critic has left the performance early and handed in a critique for the latter part of a performance he/she hadn't seen. (got caught out when at the last minute there was a change of cast and/or program.)

 

I think a negative review should be done with care - always remembering that it is subjecttive and a single snapshot in time. It is when the snapshot becomes a trend that the writer should make more of an emphasis - though remembering, that too, is subjective.

 

There is a difference between "the dancer has difficulty with musicality" as opposed to "the dancer had difficulty with musicality in this performance." If the first is true then it is incumbent on the reviewer to say this seems to be a constant problem, should be addressed and gives examples of when, how and why the reviewer has reached this conclusion. A statement of opinion should be backed up by what the reviewer is basing this conclusion upon. Just the bare negative statement is, I think, unfair.

 

And then, since ballet is international and we read reviews across the web, there are the cultural differences. What seems harsh in one culture is less so in another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Although I cannot lay an egg, I am a very good judge of omelettes”. George Bernard Shaw

 

First of all, a dance critic has to be a writer, not a dancer – his most valued quality is the writing, not having been a dancer once and maybe regretting that he’s not dancing any more, that other dancers were better than him etc.

 

In my opinion, a boring review is almost as sad as a boring performance. I hate reviews that dither around and soften every straight judgement with a nice word. If Kish looked doltish to her, why not write doltish – this is not against the person Nehemiah Kish, but a judgement about the artist and what he showed on stage on that special night. I fear artists must be able to cope with reviews like that.

 

Although I think that Clement Crisp has very strange ideas about modern ballet (and I‘m totally on Jiří Kylián’s side in his conflict with Crisp), I adore Crisp’s writing for he is often so direct and perfectly to the point, I admire him for his style.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Although I cannot lay an egg, I am a very good judge of omelettes”. George Bernard Shaw

 

First of all, a dance critic has to be a writer, not a dancer – his most valued quality is the writing, not having been a dancer once and maybe regretting that he’s not dancing any more, that other dancers were better than him etc.

 

In my opinion, a boring review is almost as sad as a boring performance.

 

 

Shaw may have believed that it is just a matter of personal taste but it would be good to know the background of the critics as some of them like to make observations on technique and artistry. Some critics do write amusing and entertaining reviews but their reviews sometimes have little to do with the show and more about the writer. A dancer and choreographers life can be hard so they do deserve to have professional comments. With audiences able to react on forums are these perhaps a better guide than newspaper critics? What motivates someone to buy a ticket if not a review?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critics need to be able to write well but the purpose of their reviews is to provide an honest and expert assessment of a performance. They are not being paid merely to be entertaining. As Mark says, everyone involved in the world of ballet (and in many other artistic fields) works extremely hard, for comparatively low wages, having spent years training, often involving considerable financial and other sacrifices along the way, and they deserve to be treated with respect. Some critics seem to be keener to show off what wordsmiths they are than write in a professional manner about the performances which they have seen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anjuli_Bai and Angela, what are critics like in the US and Germany? Are they generally trenchant in their criticism or do they tend to be tactful and positive? Are there cultural differences from the UK critics?

 

I think there are cultural differences - standards of speech and behavior - not only from country to country - but also different parts of the same country. In the USA this is surely true north/south - east/west.

 

A negative review can still be positive. There is a difference between damning a performance and critiquing it in an informed way.

 

Shaw may have believed that it is just a matter of personal taste but it would be good to know the background of the critics as some of them like to make observations on technique and artistry. Some critics do write amusing and entertaining reviews but their reviews sometimes have little to do with the show and more about the writer. A dancer and choreographers life can be hard so they do deserve to have professional comments. With audiences able to react on forums are these perhaps a better guide than newspaper critics? What motivates someone to buy a ticket if not a review?

 

When I first began writing on the web back around 1999, before many newspapers were online or had comment from readers capabilities, I found the instant feedback both challenging and stimulating.

 

I enjoyed having instant feedback - which includes a questioning of my opinion, corrections to any inaccuracy and other feedback from readers.

 

By the way, the review of a performance is not only read by an interested readership who may buy a ticket - but also by the company. I have had quite a bit of feedback from companies and/or an individual artist who felt the benefit of another "eye."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anjuli_Bai and Angela, what are critics like in the US and Germany? Are they generally trenchant in their criticism or do they tend to be tactful and positive? Are there cultural differences from the UK critics?

 

wrt to USA you can form your own view over time by looking in daily at the Dance Links forum which goes out of its way to be international (in English anyway) and has many US reviews in. I find the world view interesting, especially how productions are perceived differently as they tour internationally. Sadly the US position for critics is looking very difficult - particularly as the regional papers colapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Mark says, everyone involved in the world of ballet (and in many other artistic fields) works extremely hard, for comparatively low wages, having spent years training, often involving considerable financial and other sacrifices along the way, and they deserve to be treated with respect.

 

This all seems rather precious to me - sorry - and centred on inputs rather than outputs. I think those in dance are wonderful people, as are those in health care and many other professions. But their dedication and selflessness, or whatever, counts for bugger all if the final result is not very good. Critics I think generally laser in on the performance and while they are interested in back-stories, ultimately (I think) we should all measure things by what happens on stage. And its nice to talk about treating people with respect but if your health care is got wrong by some highly trained wonderful person you might well struggle to talk with respect about it all. And I don't see why you should. Going to the theatre is not cheap and I see nothing wrong in offering high praise and its opposite. - and thats what Levene and others do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anjuli_Bai and Angela, what are critics like in the US and Germany? Are they generally trenchant in their criticism or do they tend to be tactful and positive? Are there cultural differences from the UK critics?

 

In Germany, you get the same wide range of different articles as I read them in the British or American links - from local papers (which also slowly disappear) with friendly, but mostly clueless articles about ballet to the big national papers with specialised dance critics, who sometimes can be very, very nasty - but mostly with choreographers, not with dancers. Since the 80s, many important German critics have been opposed to ballet and were campaigning for Tanztheater or contemporary dance, which has changed in the last ten years, heaven thanks. But if you ask me about the level of nastiness, I'd say there is no difference to reviews in English oder American papers: scathing criticism doesn't happen very often, but it is possible.

I guess the French are not so blunt, anybody here from France?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce, would you like to be described publically as a "dolt" or "doltish"? I think not. I'm sure that a doctor would object to being described publically in this way as well.

 

Not only do companies (in the sense of management) read reviews but dancers read them as well. I'm not arguing against critical reviews but against rudeness in reviews.

 

Am I permitted to be rude about Louise Levene on this forum? No? I thought not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce, would you like to be described publicly as a "dolt" or "doltish"? I think not. I'm sure that a doctor would object to being described publicly in this way as well.

 

Prefer not but if that is what some feel then they can say it in a free country - I don't think it's about what I, the doctor, the dancer or the company management feel.

 

 

Not only do companies (in the sense of management) read reviews but dancers read them as well. I'm not arguing against critical reviews but against rudeness in reviews.

 

It's up to them if they read reviews and which ones they read. But if they read them or not is not particularly pertinent to what a critic says - imho.

 

But to be honest critics views increasingly count for less with the rise of social media and fans, dancers and companies all in general cosy happiness. Critics mattered in the past and less so now. I think though it would be very sad to loose serious criticism in its rich variety.

 

 

Am I permitted to be rude about Louise Levene on this forum? No? I thought not.

 

You are not because the committee that runs BalletcoForum had decided the house rules that apply to the constituency here. As I said earlier different rules apply elsewhere - and long may they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This all seems rather precious to me - sorry - and centred on inputs rather than outputs. I think those in dance are wonderful people, as are those in health care and many other professions. But their dedication and selflessness, or whatever, counts for bugger all if the final result is not very good. Critics I think generally laser in on the performance and while they are interested in back-stories, ultimately (I think) we should all measure things by what happens on stage.

 

As do I. Admittedly, there are times when off-stage events might need to be taken into account, such as where a dancer has been off with a long period of injury and perhaps isn't quite fully back at their previous level, in which case that might need to be mentioned, albeit obliquely, but generally, back-stories shouldn't matter: what counts is what goes on onstage, irrespective of whether the dancer has just had a major bust-up with his/her spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend or whatever. I think current attitudes to back-stories are partly the legacy of all these reality TV shows, where it sometimes seems to be the performer's "journey" which counts with the viewer more, perhaps, than the standard of dance (i.e. someone who's had a nice, cosy, middle-class upbringing with parents who were able to send them to dance classes might do less well than someone who has had to overcome great adversity to get to where they are, irrespective of which one is the better dancer), and partially down to individual dancers being publicised (or publicising themselves) over others - some newspaper/magazine features have a lot to answer for in this respect.

 

On the other hand, "great dancer - just a shame about what they're being asked to dance"-type comments are of course fine :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of Crisp-isms from his 2001 interview on Ballet.co:

 

"Oh, no unprejudiced criticism is worth reading. Or worth writing. Prejudice is what makes a critic interesting."

 

I sort of agree with this one but, by prejudiced does CC mean prejudiced against or would all the reviews be of the happy clappy ra ra variety so loathed by Bruce?

 

I like enthusiasm (for or against) but I would prefer to read about the performance than the professional reviewer being in love with his/her own words rather than the performance he/she is reviewing. I think a decent writer can write without personal insults. Years ago a dancer told a friend and I that the first time she saw her name in a review it said "Jane Doe should have been drowned at birth" - who deserves to see something like that in print?

Edited by Janet McNulty
edited for spelling mistake and minor change to grammar
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As do I. Admittedly, there are times when off-stage events might need to be taken into account, such as where a dancer has been off with a long period of injury and perhaps isn't quite fully back at their previous level, in which case that might need to be mentioned, albeit obliquely, but generally, back-stories shouldn't matter: what counts is what goes on onstage, irrespective of whether the dancer has just had a major bust-up with his/her spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend or whatever. I think current attitudes to back-stories are partly the legacy of all these reality TV shows, where it sometimes seems to be the performer's "journey" which counts with the viewer more, perhaps, than the standard of dance (i.e. someone who's had a nice, cosy, middle-class upbringing with parents who were able to send them to dance classes might do less well than someone who has had to overcome great adversity to get to where they are, irrespective of which one is the better dancer), and partially down to individual dancers being publicised (or publicising themselves) over others - some newspaper/magazine features have a lot to answer for in this respect.

 

On the other hand, "great dancer - just a shame about what they're being asked to dance"-type comments are of course fine :)

 

I may know "back stories" of companies I see a lot but that is absolutely not the case with companies I see on an occasional basis or for the first time.

 

Certainly for companies based outside London the dancers do not tend to get the same amount of publicity as some of those in London-based companies except for on specialist fora like this.

 

Another element to the general debate about reviews is the fact that on-line articles such as those published by Arts Desk do not seem to be as constricted by space. I sometimes wonder if printed reviews are so heavily edited that perhaps their original meaning is almost lost. Does the same thing happen with the online reviews?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say in a review that someone should have been drowned at birth is vile. If I had been that young dancer's mother I would have taken this up with the critic and the editor of the publication. It's completely unacceptable for a critic to say something like that.

With the rise of social media, professional critics may soon have had their day. I can think of one who I would like to see axed - professionally!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all see the difference between "doltish" and "should have drowned at birth" - no question that a professional critic should never use words like these in a review. And as for the question if you can be rude about a critic: of course you can! (though maybe not here). If you can't take it then don't dish it out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say in a review that someone should have been drowned at birth is vile. If I had been that young dancer's mother I would have taken this up with the critic and the editor of the publication. It's completely unacceptable for a critic to say something like that.

With the rise of social media, professional critics may soon have had their day. I can think of one who I would like to see axed - professionally!

 

Only one??!!! You are a much nicer person than I am, then :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments.I guess most published critics have no real background in the subject they are writing about and those that write for no money are doing it for vanity. It all adds to the discussion and everyone is entitled to an opinion and within the law to express it. Some being more interesting to read because they are better writers and some for their knowledge but that it has no real effect on ticket sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments.I guess most published critics have no real background in the subject they are writing about and those that write for no money are doing it for vanity. It all adds to the discussion and everyone is entitled to an opinion and within the law to express it. Some being more interesting to read because they are better writers and some for their knowledge but that it has no real effect on ticket sales.

 

Are you writing here out of vanity? Most that write for nothing do so to share their enthusiasm for an art form they love, personally I don't see how vanity comes into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess most published critics have no real background in the subject they are writing about

You don't read many newspapers, do you? Because in that one sentence you discount all those great, great dance writers of the past, from Denby to Croce, Percival, Barnes, Kisselgoff and whoever I keep forgetting in my only slightly amused anger - not to speak of all the opera, theatre, music critics who know so much about their subject and help to explain it every day to their readers.

Edited by Angela
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your observation Angela - I don't wish to discount anyone as I thought I made clear it all adds to the discussion and everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express it. I do read most of the UK press by the way - though not for the dance content -

 

I thought my earlier posting made it clear I was asking about the dance writers in the Uk nationals today most of whom do not seem to have any background in the subject they write about- ballet- .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was mentioned on another thread, but there was a programme on Radio 4 this morning (Cultural Exchange?) hosted by Mark Lawson in which the subject of professional critics was discussed. I think that Sarah Crompton was one of the contributors. She said that the public read professional critics because they trust them but what I think were referred to as "citizen critics" (bloggers, tweeters and presumably people like us on this forum) also had their place. I assume that you can listen to the programme again on i-player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a good piece about critics and criticism by the pianist Peter Donohoe on his blog.

 

Thanks so much for posting that link, I really enjoyed reading what he had to say and I think he covers everything regarding an artist's response to critics. I've always liked Peter Donohoe's playing and never realised he was equally engaging in print!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the reviews of ENB's Sleeping Beauty included in John's press collection today illustrate well the gentle art of being critical of a performance (in this case Aurora) in terms of careful use of language and in a manner where praise of other aspects of the show takes away the sting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the reviews of ENB's Sleeping Beauty included in John's press collection today illustrate well the gentle art of being critical of a performance (in this case Aurora) in terms of careful use of language and in a manner where praise of other aspects of the show takes away the sting.

 

Actually a friend who saw that performance was telling me about it yesterday in terms of what I would call rather outright languge: he didn't mince his words.

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...