« Gelsey Kirkland Ballet 3/18Kurt Weill meets Tennessee Williams in a Brooklyn warehouse cabaret | Main | Paul Taylor Dance Company 3/23Fall in love again with Diversion of Angels »

March 19, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

NY Times reviews the production in today's edition. After spending 7 paragraphs discussing the new "underwater" setting, Macaulay observes "Whether above water level or below it, this new South Florida look is immaterial; you come out talking about the ballet and the dancers."

Really? Then, why did the reader have to wait until the last third of the review for the author to start talking about the ballet and the dancers?

So, frustrating and so typical of Macaulay's reviews.

True, Jennifer, that review is a total waste. Alastair Irrelevant was able to fly down to Florida to see a ballet just for the change in clothing and scenery, but he couldn't drag his ass to neighboring Philadelphia to see a brand new production of Don Quixote staged by an authentic Basilio.

It's long past time for the New York Times to get a ballet critic who is in touch with America instead of a pompous Tory who has no appreciation for the country's history prior to his self-blessed, self-heralded arrival. He continually slams the one choreographer who has the deepest relationship and understanding of all of American culture through his own personal experiences. Macaulay will never get over his resentment that Paul Taylor has been a greater artistic success than Mark Morris and Merce Cunningham combined. That's reason enough for the NYT not to allow Macaulay (or his disciples) to review the Taylor company's performances.

Macaulay is truly the worst. I've never seen anyone fawn and drool over a few choice dancers so pathetically as he does. It is way past time the NYT got a dance critic that can be informed and objective.

The comments to this entry are closed.