Royal Ballet "perilously under-starred"?

[John Mallinson]

Starts by complaining that things ain't what they used to be............(didn't Mr Acosta say that too) and by the end he has acidentally ended up reminding us all how interesting and varied the company is and why we keep going to see them!

 

I'm sure the strap line "Royal Ballet Has Slipped a Little From Its Peak Form" would have been written by a sub-editor as an eye-catcher rather than by the author.

 

Macaulay thinks the corps isn't as consistently good as it used to be (or other companies in the West have got better) and isn't keen on some of its classical productions. Otherwise his take is rather positive and, as you say, ends on a very upbeat note. Nothing accidental about that and I don't see any internal contradiction.

[alison]

I've never noticed Watson looking particularly pale on stage, given that he would be wearing make-up anyway.  And is there a significant difference between being "ginger" and "flame haired"?  Watson and McRae are both redheads, so what?

 

Watson is definitely pale-skinned (although possibly no more so than a few other dancers, his British fellow principals included, who I've noticed over the past few years have skin which is highly sensitive to friction/touching, which I don't think Ed's is).  As for significant differences between ginger and flame-haired - did Macaulay use both terms? I can't remember - "flame-haired" is positive, "ginger" these days seems to be used in a predominantly negative sense (not that that was how I used it - I was just mirroring the previous poster), in particular in connection with bullying and so on.  And Watson is (or possibly was, at least?) redder-haired than McRae, who's a few shades nearer to strawberry blond.  I used to pass him occasionally in Floral Street in the mornings, and if the sun caught his hair it could be quite blinding

[chrischris]

Watson is definitely pale-skinned (although possibly no more so than a few other dancers, his British fellow principals included, who I've noticed over the past few years have skin which is highly sensitive to friction/touching, which I don't think Ed's is). 

 

I've never noticed that with Cuthbertson but i've noticed a few times that Pennefather will often finish the performance with some kind of rash. Sylvia a few years ago, by the end it looked like someone had gone at him with sand paper.

[Nina G.]

I've never noticed that with Cuthbertson but i've noticed a few times that Pennefather will often finish the performance with some kind of rash. Sylvia a few years ago, by the end it looked like someone had gone at him with sand paper.

I may be stating the obvious... but just in case anyone wonders why...... it's called the "Tutu" effect (when lifting and lowering the ballerina her tutu scratches their face)

[aileen]

Some people have more sensitive skin than others and some have a skin condition whereby they become very red in the face when under stress or experiencing high emotion. As Nina has said, the reddening of the skin may also be caused by scratching by a tutu, although I would have thought that stage make-up would provide some protection. Perhaps it's not re-applied often enough or perhaps it's not as greasy as the kind worn by other, non-dance, performers.

[chrischris]

I think also their own costumes must irritate the skin, particularly with the amount of sweat they must produce. I know during the summer I often get home from work and I have horrible red marks round my neck from where my shirt and suit jacket have been rubbing against the skin. Can't imagine dancing in those types of costumes.

[LinMM]

I think there are some things you can "say" to friends other critics and so on in their private company but probably not actually put into print. (And this goes for all of us I think) Referring to the Nehemiah Kish comment in the article. I know critics have a job to do but there are ways of phrasing things that can get a point across but also be helpful to a performer/artist etc Although having said that he is certainly not as vicious as some!

 

In terms of the article as a whole I felt it came across as he is actually pretty fond of the Royal as a Company but is hoping there won't be any serious threat of any decline in standards.

Edited December 23, 2013 by LinMM

[Bruce]

As he pointed out, Macaulay has been living in NY since 2007 so he would be recalling performances he saw before he left.

I'm sure he is recalling performances prior to 2007 - he has been seeing the company for decades. However he regularly returns 'home' to London to see the company. I don't think of him as particularly out of touch.

[Bruce]

I think its a great piece by Macaulay - if anything perhaps a little kind in going through the male principal side. But he does love the company, sees them regularly and I believe the comments should be seen as from a sober and knowledgeable friend rather than your Granny telling you how wonderful you are.

 

wrt to Kish I don't think his remark bitchy at all. Now the 'wooden' remark by Louise Levene might well be considered bitchy. However it didn't seem so bitchy to me because I agree with both of them.

 

I see no problem in critics going through companies like this and it actually doesn't happen often that you get a sober reflection over so many words - 1500+ words in this case. If anybody is aware of a big sweep piece like this, as opposed to a review which might make a wider point or two in passing, do stick up some links.

 

Pieces like this are never going to please everybody, nor include every rising star that one might like. One persons view for sure, but if most fans tried to do 1500 words on the subject it would generally be a gush of those liked and little said about others. I might not agree with all Macaulay says but I recognise somebody who loves the art and looking to call it in a fair and balanced way. I read critics like Macaulay because they are realistic - fans views are much more heartfelt love letters, generally. Room for all (why I started Balletco all those years ago!) and we each dip into what we find interesting and enlightening.

[Mary]

Indeed Bruce, and I am glad there is room for all, but your comment made me think, and recall the American literary critic Margaret Fuller's dictum  that a good critic "should teach us to love wisely what we before loved well"

 

Probably most of us would like to have seen many more performances/dancers/interpretations than we have been able to see, and it is always good to hear the views of someone who has been able to see a very large number of the best of everything (lucky soul!)

[chrischris]

I think its a great piece by Macaulay - if anything perhaps a little kind in going through the male principal side. But he does love the company, sees them regularly and I believe the comments should be seen as from a sober and knowledgeable friend rather than your Granny telling you how wonderful you are.

 

wrt to Kish I don't think his remark bitchy at all. Now the 'wooden' remark by Louise Levene might well be considered bitchy. However it didn't seem so bitchy to me because I agree with both of them.

 

I see no problem in critics going through companies like this and it actually doesn't happen often that you get a sober reflection over so many words - 1500+ words in this case. If anybody is aware of a big sweep piece like this, as opposed to a review which might make a wider point or two in passing, do stick up some links.

 

Pieces like this are never going to please everybody, nor include every rising star that one might like. One persons view for sure, but if most fans tried to do 1500 words on the subject it would generally be a gush of those liked and little said about others. I might not agree with all Macaulay says but I recognise somebody who loves the art and looking to call it in a fair and balanced way. I read critics like Macaulay because they are realistic - fans views are much more heartfelt love letters, generally. Room for all (why I started Balletco all those years ago!) and we each dip into what we find interesting and enlightening.

 

You really don't rate the male principals do you?

[chrischris]

I think its a great piece by Macaulay - if anything perhaps a little kind in going through the male principal side. But he does love the company, sees them regularly and I believe the comments should be seen as from a sober and knowledgeable friend rather than your Granny telling you how wonderful you are.

 

 

I agree it is interesting to see articles like this and hear other people's opinions, particularly when they have been watching the company for decades. The only reservation I have about such commentators is that they often appear to view the past with rose tinted glasses, harking back to supposed 'glory days' which in reality probably never existed (the guy who writes for the FT is guilty of this IMO) so I tend to take some of these articles with a pinch of salt, interesting though they are. I'm sure there were journalists covering Fonteyn and Nureyev lamenting that they weren't as good as the previous generation.

[SMballet]

Oh Chris Chris I;m so glad you mentioned that FT guy, Clement Crisp. I know some of the posters here like him or at least respect his judgment, but I really can't STAND him, because he keeps harping on some performance he saw in 1925 or something, And his writing style is so grating and overblown, at least to me, I can't stop rolling me eyes when I read anything he's written.

I read his reviews when linked here because I'm always curious to know how he'll judge a performance, and I always come away annoyed at myself for having wasted the time . I love Judith Mackrell and Luke Jennings and many of the other dance critics, so it's nothing against critics per se (though, to be honest, I don;t really put much store by what any critic says and would much rather read dance blogs, twitter etc to get a sense of a performance, any day). 

[Bruce]

You really don't rate the male principals do you?

I seriously rate some and not others - but its all shades of grey and depends on rep. I wouldn't expect to like all the principals in any company but my point re RB was that the totality of firepower, on the mens side, is currently deficient. But I don't want to repeat what I said already in this thread:

http://www.balletcoforum.com/index.php?/topic/4728-royal-ballet-perilously-under-starred/?p=57738

[Bruce]

I agree it is interesting to see articles like this and hear other people's opinions, particularly when they have been watching the company for decades. The only reservation I have about such commentators is that they often appear to view the past with rose tinted glasses, harking back to supposed 'glory days' which in reality probably never existed (the guy who writes for the FT is guilty of this IMO) so I tend to take some of these articles with a pinch of salt, interesting though they are. I'm sure there were journalists covering Fonteyn and Nureyev lamenting that they weren't as good as the previous generation.

We can all look at our past with rose-tinted spectacles, but I think critics and commentators strive to be more objective than that. But, and it's a big but, it's all subject to differing tastes of course and critics are all different, like the audience. So Clement Crisp (aka "the guy who writes for the FT") is never going to write positively about Jiri Kylian and NDT in whatever decade you care to talk about. But that's fine and we read him accordingly.

 

While I agree rose-tinting is a concern, I don't subscribe to the view that past good times (or glory days) "probably never existed". Some decades and collaborations of people and places move the art forward, and capture the public imagination, more than others. It might be that some critics didn't appreciate Fonteyn and Nureyev or what Diaghilev achieved but I think the majority could put them all in good and interesting context. So much of ballet/dance is a handing on of the past (with coaching from older dancers etc) and a critical perspective on the past informs today as well.

[chrischris]

Oh Chris Chris I;m so glad you mentioned that FT guy, Clement Crisp. I know some of the posters here like him or at least respect his judgment, but I really can't STAND him, because he keeps harping on some performance he saw in 1925 or something, And his writing style is so grating and overblown, at least to me, I can't stop rolling me eyes when I read anything he's written.

I read his reviews when linked here because I'm always curious to know how he'll judge a performance, and I always come away annoyed at myself for having wasted the time . I love Judith Mackrell and Luke Jennings and many of the other dance critics, so it's nothing against critics per se (though, to be honest, I don;t really put much store by what any critic says and would much rather read dance blogs, twitter etc to get a sense of a performance, any day). 

 

Completely agree. I like those two journalists, though I also just have a look at twitter to get a feel of whether I will like a show or not. I also find a lot of the other critics and commentators quite pretentious.

[alison]

We can all look at our past with rose-tinted spectacles, but I think critics and commentators strive to be more objective than that.

 

In a way that you don't always find on, say, social media and blogs.

 

So Clement Crisp (aka "the guy who writes for the FT") is never going to write positively about Jiri Kylian and NDT in whatever decade you care to talk about. But that's fine and we read him accordingly.

 

Yes, all critics have their likes and dislikes, and if you read them for long enough you get a good idea of what they are, and, as Bruce says, read them accordingly, and disregard their views if you know from experience that they don't usually agree with yours.  This does presuppose that a publication uses the same critic, or critics, on a regular basis, because if they keep chopping and changing it's very difficult to know where you are.

 

It might be that some critics didn't appreciate Fonteyn and Nureyev or what Diaghilev achieved but I think the majority could put them all in good and interesting context. So much of ballet/dance is a handing on of the past (with coaching from older dancers etc) and a critical perspective on the past informs today as well.

 

Quite.  I find I tend to appreciate the experience of long-standing reviewers - provided that their recall is accurate, of course - precisely because they've been watching, and probably more intently, for longer than I have.  If ballet A or role B or even dancer C has changed significantly over the years, then it can be well worth pointing out, especially if things are now being missed out that weren't previously.

 

Chrischris, do you really get a decent feel for a production in 140 characters or less?  I'm trying to think whether I've ever managed it - I can't think that I have.

[chrischris]

Chrischris, do you really get a decent feel for a production in 140 characters or less?  I'm trying to think whether I've ever managed it - I can't think that I have.

 

No, but I don't really need a full overview/ review of a production, though I find them interesting to read. There are a few people I follow on twitter and I know from experience that we tend to like the same things and dancers, so I look out for their views and they do tend to chime with mine. Similarly there are people on here who I have noticed I tend to agree with, so if I am going to a ballet I haven't seen before, and want an idea of what to expect, I look out for their posts. It's rare that i read a review in a newspaper and pay much attention to it, and I don't always feel this strive for objectivity in journalists, particularly amongst those that have been covering ballet for ages; in fact I tend to find those ones a bit pretentious and smug and generally ignore them. I have stopped reading Crisp (thank you to those who reminded me of his name) because it felt like all his reviews were lamenting how today's dancers weren't as good or today's choreographers were a betrayal of Ashton and Macmillan etc etc. Maybe I just have a dim view of journalists because i've had to work with quite a few.

[aileen]

Putting it crudely, hasn't the style of dancing, even in the classics, and the appearance of the dancers, particularly the women, changed somewhat over the years. Female dancers seem more athletic and muscular than they used to be (which is more obvious when tights are not worn) and, to me, their dancing can sometimes look a bit 'brittle' (rather than warm and lyrical). Is this what some critics are lamenting when they compare today's dancers to those of the past or are they referring to something else?

[nottsballetlover]

I've just been to matinee of RB Jewels. I went because I knew it would be an absolute showcase of the incredible talent the RB have. So it was - so many gifted dazzling jewels of dancers I will single nobody out. The company is in transition - some leading dancers have moved on but to say it is 'under- starred' is unfair. New stars and partnerships are emerging. Based on Jewels today, they have an abundance of starry jewels.

[LinMM]

Absolutely agree nottsballetlover!! I think the Royal as a whole is in pretty good shape.

[loveclassics]

I may be stating the obvious... but just in case anyone wonders why...... it's called the "Tutu" effect (when lifting and lowering the ballerina her tutu scratches their face)

Re Sylvia, the grand tutu worn by the heroine in the last act is made of very stiff and scratchy net.  I saw it in the workrooms during a back stage tour and very delicately touched the skirt with the back of my hand so the man who had to lift the girl wearing it, and rest her on his bare shoulder, had my sympathy.   After the performances I noticed that both Rupert and Jonny (Cope) had bright red patches on their exposed shoulders at the curtain calls.  Makhatelli, however, insisted on changing his costume so that both shoulders were covered.  I don't think skin tone comes into it - our guys are just better at toughing it out!

 

Like Macaulay, I miss some of the past dancers such as Cope and those of his era but have no complaints about the current crop.  And the ones hovering on the edge of promotion show great promise for the future of the company, IMHO.  I'm now catching up with the feast of TV recordings from the holiday period and there's much to applaud and be hopeful about.

 

Linda.

[capybara]

I have come rather late to the resurgence of this debate in the wake of the NY Times article. I am actually rather pleased to see that a critic who is both steeped in the RB and is thoroughly cognisant of the talent in companies worldwide is prepared to comment on the current roster of Royal Ballet Principals. We fans are prone (here and elsewhere) to applaud our favourites but are not necessarily well-placed to judge their performances in the light of wide knowledge of standards elsewhere. 

 

And, not being able to resist throwing in my pennyworth...... unfortunately for it, the RB does not currently have top stars like Vadim Muntagirov and Leonid Sarafanov in its ranks. 

[Fonty]

I was just thinking about the current crop of male Principals.  Although I adore Acosta, I feel that nobody has really filled Cope's place with his ability to look noble.  He was perfect in those roles that required him to spend a large portion of his time holding his tutu clad lady in position, whilst gazing with adoration at the back of her head. 

 

Watson and McRae are wonderful dancers, but in my opinion they look too modern for the pure classical roles, and not always entirely comfortable.  Soares looks ok, but never really seems to hit the high notes for me.  And I would be hard put to remember any performances by Bonelli and Pennyfeather in anything, I just cannot picture them in my mind. 

[chrischris]

He was perfect in those roles that required him to spend a large portion of his time holding his tutu clad lady in position, whilst gazing with adoration at the back of her head. 

 

 

 

This made me laugh out loud

[aileen]

Being a danseur noble can be a thankless task at times!

[aileen]

It's interesting that, apart from Nureyev (who was dancing some time ago now) and Jonathan Cope, no-one has actually named any other (male) dancers from the past whom they have particularly admired.

[Bruce Wall]

No one I think who tasted it could forget Dowell's fine line and legato magic.  That is a prevalent memory for me from the RB's canon of danseur nobles.  

[LinMM]

I think Dowell has definitely had the most beautiful classical lines of recent decades. Nureyev was always more untidy and loosely knit as it were but then he had something else.

Dowell still stands out for me as Oberon in the Dream. I saw him with Sibley in this ballet and have never seen it bettered YET!! She was another beautifully lyrical and musical dancer. But yes he was a true danseur noble and now an inspiring and engaging teacher!!

 

However McRae is really fine in this role too but not as purely classical.

[MAB]

Although I have now stopped buying magazines due to lack of space, I actually have back copies going back to the 1960's and reading the reviews from that era, particularly in Dance & Dancers, it was difficult to find a negative review of Fonteyn.  Nureyev was another matter and certainly I remember him as inconsistent as a performer though on top form you would be seeing the highlight of your ballet going life.

 

I caught the end of Christopher Gable's brief dancing career and he was a rival to Nureyev in popularity at the time.  Donald Macleary was a first rate danseur noble.  David Wall joined the company a little later and also had a massive fan base.  A few years later Wayne Eagling excelled in MacMillan roles and indeed had many roles created for him by MacMillan.  Incidentally Alistair Macauley had an irrational hatred of Wayne Eagling and gave him some of the most vitriolic reviews I have ever read, he also detested the highly popular Margaret Barbieri.  Macauley's reviews in the now defunct publication Ritz, were the most disgusting I have ever read and consequently he is one critic that I have always regarded with the utmost contempt.

[Fonty]

MAB, it is interesting that you have reviews from what everyone considers to be the Golden Era of the RB.  I remember my old dance teacher saying that Nureyev with Fonteyn was wonderful, but with anybody else it was pot luck as to whether you got a terrific or a mediocre performance. She also said that he had untidy footwork and his landings after jumps could be sloppy, but she was a stickler for neat feet.  On the other hand, she raved about Dowell's technique.  Dowell seems to have been one of the most elegant dancers, and even today when I see clips of him he is remarkable. 

 

 

When anybody mentions that era, they always talk about partnerships - Fonteyn/Nureyev, Sibley/Dowell, Seymour/Gable.  I know this is a recurring theme on here, but you never really hear people talking about those kind of partnerships anymore.  Was this what made those dancers so memorable?  The fact that each couple complemented and inspired each other, and could perfect their interpretations together?

 

Poor old Wayne Eagling.  Never saw him dance, but hat did he do to get such poor reviews? 

[MAB]

Your teacher was quite right Fonty, though Nureyev gave good performances with Merle Park and Lynn Seymour too and I believe he worked on his footwork over time.

 

I miss the great partnerships a lot and I'm told that because of the higher injury rate these days it is preferable to have a chop and change policy so that all the dancers are familiar with one another should there be last minute cast changes.  It makes sense I suppose.

 

As I said Macauley's attitude to Wayne Eagling was irrational.  In style he was loose limbed with an exceptional extension, when I first saw the teenage Tsiskaridze I was instantly reminded of Wayne, and Edward Watson is similar in dancing style too, indeed he seems to have inherited a lot of the Eagling roles so perhaps people in the RB have spotted that similarity too.

[Fonty]

 

I miss the great partnerships a lot and I'm told that because of the higher injury rate these days it is preferable to have a chop and change policy so that all the dancers are familiar with one another should there be last minute cast changes.  It makes sense I suppose.

 

 

 

Well, that seems to bring us on to another recurring theme, which is dancers' injuries.  The  current rep does seem to expect all dancers to master every type of choregraphy, and to push their bodies beyond what is perhaps reasonable or necessary. 

 

I can understand the logic, that you have to practise with alternate partners in case of injury/illness, but these days it feels as if I am lucky if I get to see the cast I originally booked for. More and more frequently, the partnership is untested, leading to slightly tentative performances.  I feel something is wrong here, and somebody needs to take a long, hard look at the training and techniques of ballet dancers.  There are certain things that the human body cannot deal with on a day to day basis without causing damage, however supple the individual may be, and I am pretty certain that hyper extensions must rank high on that list. 

 

And perhaps if today's dancers and choreographers could be persuaded to tone it down a little, we might get back to the blissful partnerships of yesteryear. 

 

I shall get down off my soapbox now.