Alastair Macaulay’s essay about the kind of ballroom dance found on TV shows – Ballroom: More Sexily, Less Strictly – speaks to the radical divide between high dance and low:
Not So Strictly On TV — the British reality series “Strictly Come Dancing,” which began
in 2004, and the American “So You Think You Can Dance,” which started
in 2005 — we see all the good-humored hard work that both sexes put
into performing ballroom.
In such a context I only occasionally pause to consider that their
endeavor itself is gross….
The little I see of “So You Think You Can Dance” and “Strictly Come
Dancing” tends to put me off watching more; the camera angles seldom
help you judge footwork; the whole climate feels manipulative; and the
dances themselves aren’t those I’d want good performers to learn…
What makes me wretched is that all these stunts, acrobatics,
point-scoring and flashy displays of sexual availability are what
matter. Musicality, phrasing, intimacy and actual sensuousness are what
don’t.
The little he sees of it. Ordinarily, admitting that you haven’t seen what you’re attacking is not thought of as good form.
And yet Apollinaire Scherr rushed to agree, here.
I’ve been wanting to write this piece forever, and probably because I
knew it would seem hopelessly snobby–I can’t tell you how many people
whose only exposure to dance are these shows ask me eagerly what I
think of them–somehow haven’t. I just say I haven’t watched them much,
which is true enough, but the reason is that they give me a
stomachache.
I just say I haven’t watched them much, which is true enough…
I’m not going to defend Dancing With the Stars. It’s amateur hour with coaches. But So You Think You Can Dance? There are dancers on that show qualified to be in any contemporary company in existence. Some of the choreography is corny and over-the-top, but far from all of it.
Alastair Macaulay is not only a good writer. He’s the only full-time dance critic employed at a newspaper in the United States. He has weight. I can’t imagine why he wants to swing it at a target he hasn’t seen.
What is it with dance critics? Do they dream of divine forms they can’t bear to see sullied by daily life?
When Arlene Croce attacked Bill T. Jones’ Still/Here in 1995, with an (unlinkable) essay that began, “I have not seen Bill T Jones’ Still/Here and have no plans to review it,” she besmirched her career, not his, because what followed was a review of Jones’ meanings as she misunderstood them. (Her piece discussed here.)
Macaulay more recently wrote a lovely piece about Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, here. Had he been watching So You Think You Can Dance, however, he’d have known that Benji Schwimmer, dancing below with his cousin, Heidi Groskreutz, won first place on the show in 2006. Instead of maintaining that its dancers lack “musicality, phrasing, intimacy and actual sensuousness,” Macaulay would have seen a genuine heir to Astaire.
Ha! Benji Schwimmer a “genuine heir to Astaire.” That is rich. While you might have a few valid points in this rather specious post (the Macauley-Croce connection is very thin), that statement alone invalidates your entire argument.
If you can actually watch Schwimmer and even think ‘Astaire’ you have no business being either a dance critic or a critic of the “only full-time dance critic employed at a newspaper in the US.” Wordy, BTW.
The real story here is that everyone (myself included) likes to take the occasional shot at Macauley. That’s just pure professional jealousy.
But I know how it is. When you can’t come up with an original idea you gotta do something. In other words,when you’re writing a blog you have to keep spitting out snark. Good luck with all that.
The difference, and it’s a large one, between Astaire and Schwimmer: The former was his own choreographer, and the latter needs one. But as a dancer, Schwimmer has all the qualities that Macauley denies those on “So You Think You Can Dance” – musicality, phrasing, intimacy and actual sensuousness. You think anyone who dissents from Macauley is just jealous, including yourself? There’s a real need for diversity of voices in your field. The Croce connection is a fact. She reviewed a performance she hadn’t seen, and Macauley summed up many performances he hadn’t seen. Yr pt, aside from being a snob, is?
You’re so right about this. Dance critics tend to be reactionary, because there is so little support for what they do. They turn inward, rejecting the culture that rejects them. If a show like So You Think You Can Dance has merit, what is their sacrifice about? I’m hoping there are stipends for dance critics in the future, like regular jobs, with better magazines to print what they produce, or really good websites supported as nonprofits.
Hi, Regina,
In defense of Macaulay and me, a couple of thoughts: I do think there’s a difference between Croce’s not going at all (though if it were the time and I had the time, I would defend that action, given her reasons) and Macaulay not watching the bulk of these two dance competition shows. Don’t TV critics, even, review a show after having watched only the pilot and a few shows in? I don’t think a critic is obliged to watch every show to weigh in on the gist of it. Of course there are going to be exceptions to the general rule of terrible choreography that makes even good dancers dreadful, but that’s not his or my point. And haven’t you walked into a gallery, given a good look at a few paintings/installations/videos and then scanned the rest? I mean, do you study every single inch of canvass to give it the benefit of the doubt? I think Macaulay is very careful, in all of his reviews, to report exactly how much he has seen and not seen. Probably other critics wouldn’t even mention it if they hadn’t seen every single show.
As for the whole high/low distinction, I agree that dance critics–or rather, ballet critics–can be snobs. On the other hand, we’ve reached a point in the culture where to condemn a popular and populist art is suspect from the get-go. I think it’s refreshing, not tiresome, that he would dare do it in the Times. Also, how often do art critics even bother with this kind of commercial work: say, Thomas Kinkade? Let me know what you think when they do. Sure, Dave Hickey has done Rockwell, but that’s so far after the fact, it hardly counts.
Finally, this video above: I agree he’s a fine dancer–particularly his hips and footwork–but the choreography and the way it works with its music doesn’t allow him to be musical. Every one of his phrases ends with the same sort of ta-da, and the feel of the music runs exactly counter to the spirit of the dancing. It’s a ludicrous piece, and that’s the problem with So You Think You Can Dance?–the show reduces even the best dancers to dreck.
~Apollinaire