By
ERIC WOLFRAM
eric@voiceofdance.com
VoiceofDance.com 2006 Eric Wolfram is a writer, videographer and film editor who lives in New York City.
Yuan Yuan Tan And Damian Smith in Helgi Tomasson's The Fifth Season. Photo by Erik Tomasson.
Lewis Segal, the dance critic for the LA Times, wrote an essay called "Five Things I Hate About Ballet." As a fifth reason for hating ballet he argued that ballet is too pretty and yet not beautiful. He then went one step further. "It's relatively easy to be pretty -- a matter of symmetry, smoothness, good taste and a sense of dancing as a form of decoration." As a former ballet dancer, I know first hand that he is absolutely wrong.
So I challenge Segal to don some tights and demonstrate how easy ballet is, and to record the attempt for the Voice of Dance video blog. At that point, I'll stand corrected.
Until then, my guess is that Segal will only need five years in a gym doing tendus -- all day -- before he even begins to understand exactly how easy it is to approach the good taste and symmetry needed to earn the right to be referred to as decoration.
Beyond that, I couldn't figure out what he was actually complaining about -- too pretty, not beautiful? Like the rest of his essay, this part was littered with indirect and vague quips and half thoughts, which were often incorrect, misinformed or laughable. Was he in a hurry when he wrote it? He was clearly passionate about hating ballet, but why?
To dance, essentially, is to arrange one's body to be in the right place at the right time. Segal's single example of "pretty yet not beautiful" was a Juliet who (fourteen years ago) arranged her body on the crypt during the death scene of Romeo and Juliet. Segal huffs, "Star-cross'd body design. If that isn't worth hating, what is?" No wonder he hates it. Ballet IS body design. What does he think he's watching? Method acting? You'd think he'd consider reviewing movies instead.
Of course, Segal is only one of many people with an aversion to ballet. Ballet is not for everyone -- I admit it. And there is plenty of bad ballet out there to make fun of and to avoid. But if you were trying to avoid ballet, why would you be a dance writer?
Segal takes it one step further and asserts that people who DO watch ballet actually hate ballet but feel too guilty to openly voice their opinions -- basically calling them idiots. He even blames their imagined guilt on ballet itself for "cultivating an intimidation factor that acts like a computer firewall." (This is funny, not just because most people who dislike ballet are not masochistic enough to watch every show that comes their way, as Segal does, but because it's obvious from Segal's conspiracy theory that his understanding of the influence of ballet is about as deep as his understanding of computer Technology. Not to mention his understanding of constructing a simile that makes sense.)
Is he really saying that ballet audiences are too stupid to know what they like and don't like? Or is he just saying they're stupid for not agreeing with him?
No one expects to have a spiritual moment every time they go to the ballet, however, at its best, that's exactly what you will have. The pre-show dinner and champagne, the twilight gathering in the lobby as people scan the program to discover who's performing, the orchestra warming up and the music beginning. The curtain pulls back to reveal an enchanted scene where dancers enter and stir -- bound in musicality - into a whirlwind of perfection. If your heart is closed to it, then the muse will pass you by every time.
Segal never says what he does like, but I suppose he would never condemn Kathakali for communicating ancient East Indian world views or Blues music for promoting early 20th century African American experience. But he condemns the ballet for the depicting royal European scenes, which he finds offensive, and he wishes them "gone from the repertory of major companies." Why should his cultural purging stop there? Maybe he could dump Don Giovanni onto the bonfire with most of Shakespeare's works and half the content of the Louvre for promoting Eurocentric images. Thank God Segal is only a dance journalist in a city that doesn't have a ballet company, or where would his cultural cleansing stop?
Segal also claims that ballet audiences are dwindling and that is proof that he is right. Maybe he should mention that to the people who wait three hours in line for standing room at the Metropolitan opera house in New York. The fact is, the audience for ballet is growing. There are more ballet companies today then ever before. In 1890, there were only a few ballet companies. In 1950, there were maybe fifty. Today, most cities have them, except for cities like Los Angeles, where citizens are ten minutes away from their last episode of such great performances as Miami CSI and reruns of Three's Company. The fact is, ballet has already stood the test of time. Sorry Segal, it's here to stay.
Another contention of Segal's bizarre essay is his complete misunderstanding of the performing arts in general. He says ballets are "forgeries" and "fake antiques" because they are re-staged and based on a word of mouth tradition. Yet, in the same paragraph, he seams to believe that the Shakespeare and opera of today are exact facsimile of productions of the past. They are all, in fact, living arts and open to the interpretation of the artists who perform them and the directors who stage them.
The worst kind of critic, Segal completely dismisses the artistic contributions of the people who perform. "A life lived by someone else's counts is the ultimate unexamined existence," he sniffs. Do actors not say the words of the writers? Do musicians not play the notes of the composers? But dancerslives are unexamined because they dance the choreography? Each performing artist interprets their own roles to bring life to the work -- and life to their own souls. On the other hand, being forced to write about ballet when you hate it, now THAT'S an unexamined existence.
Segal compares ballet dancers to animals at the circus. I take personal offence to that. When I compare Segal with a monkey at a typewriter, the monkey always wins.
Perhaps his most boneheaded reason for hating ballet is that he thinks dancers aren't socially responsible because dancers don't tell their directors, "I just don't want to be seen in Swan Lake." Does Segal really have the audacity to assume that everyone hates ballet, even ballet dancers? Does he actually suggest as one of his reasons for hating ballet that ballet dancers don't tell their directors that they won't dance? Incredibly -- yes!
Segal, go tell your editor that you don't want to write anymore -- please. Because those who are forced to write about the free ballet performances they hate to see become burnt out blood sucking parasites -- leaches. You wouldn't have anything to write about if it weren't for dance. Lewis Segal, dance is better off without you.
