Comments on: 2009 San Francisco Ballet’s Jewels

By: jolene

jolene — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:14:48 +0000

By: sfmike

sfmike — Wed, 06 May 2009 06:06:10 +0000

Dear Jolene: All of the above, or why bother?

By: jolene

jolene — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:56:16 +0000

I’ve been thinking a lot about reviews too, especially with the discussion on Claudia’s blog, where she asked the question, what is dance criticism? As always, lots of interesting discussion there, that really made me think. http://blogs.wnyc.org/culture/2009/04/13/performance-club-easter-slaughter/comment-page-1/#comment-3056

Hm… a critic is someone who’s got something to say. Can you elaborate a little bit, Tonya? Do you think it has to be something interesting? Something true? Something controversial? Something nice?

By: tonya

tonya — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:27:46 +0000

Yes, I agree reviews should be lively and interesting above all else. How else are you going to have an audience, right! I’m reading H.L. Mencken right now and he says a true critic is someone who above all has something s/he’s just got to say — not someone who wants to be prescriptive and change the direction of an art form, not someone who just wants to criticize nor someone who just wants to pander to the artists. I don’t know why I’m writing all this here! Haha, you just made me think about criticism! But, yes, I find Macaulay a very lively, interesting writer in general, though sometimes, when I haven’t seen what he’s seen or don’t know much about the company he’s writing about, I get lost in some of the detail. But generally, he has a big persona with lots to say.

By: jolene

jolene — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:28:58 +0000

Hi Tonya, I certainly think that there’s value in casting against type, but still there’s nothing like seeing a ballerina let go of her ripcord and excel at what she does best. I also think it makes dancers better dancers as well, and more versatile.

I did read Sir Alastair Macaulay’s review. I would list all the reviews, but there’s something funny about the blogging platform that if I go back and add links retroactively (b/c I never read reviews anymore until after I publish my take), I have to go back and reformat all the photos. It’s really annoying. I gotta say, I’m really loving Macaulay’s reviews more and more. I think his dead honesty is refreshing, and clearly no one cares more about dance than he does. And Denby writes that a good critic is a lively writer first, and if anything, that’s what Macaulay is. He also has the huge advantage of a well of experience, and comparing it to the previous interpretations that he’s seen as well as the standard that has formed inside his head.

I think he saw the first two casts, and I could see how he liked Vanessa Zahorian in Diamonds more than Rubies, although I’m not sure if anyone could hold a candle to Sofiane’s Diamonds! She was simply amazing, and made my entire night.

For those who haven’t seen it, his review is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/arts/dance/29jewe.html?_r=1&ref=dance

By: tonya

tonya — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:23:22 +0000

I love your descriptions of the stage sets! (And your funny link to the Lite Bright ) It sounds really splendid!

And that’s so interesting about the casting — I don’t know SFB tremendously well but I would think of Tan and Feijoo for Rubies too, especially Feijoo — certainly not Emeralds! But it’s been noted (I think by Macaulay but I’m not completely sure off the top of my head) how Balanchine used to do that — cast against type — so it makes sense Tommasson would have wanted to do the same. By the way, did you read Macaulay’s review in the NYTimes? He saw I think every cast there was and he compares and contrasts them.