The Sad Kitchen
Wednesday, 12 November, 2008
If you have been paying attention you will remember the story we told you a few weeks ago about Sadler's Wells/londondance.com "launching" a "new" video player on their respective websites. Both sites are run by the London theatre.
It turns out that this "new player" was nothing more than a video hosting platform called Brightcove, a paid for video distribution network.
There is no new content, there is no video production machine at work in the bowels of Sadlers Wells Theatre, there is nothing new at all. The much vaunted video interview with William Forsythe is online, it's on LD.com.
If you watch the interview you will, almost immediately, notice the complete absence of dance video from the discussion. What you get is William Forsythe sitting in a dingy kitchen somewhere answering "serious" questions posed by some unseen voice on the other side of said dingy kitchen.
At the best of times Mr Forsythe is completely unintelligible when talking about his work so footage of the actual dance is essential.
Either some fool forgot they needed to go shoot the show or rehearsal footage or they were not allowed to do so for some bizarre, contractual, pseudo legal gibberish that, if left to go unchecked, could ruin the media revolution for dance as we know it! (blimey! Ed!)
So what we have is an interview with a dance maker that has no dance in it. You might as well put it on the radio and be done with it!
We warned these guys that if they didn't get it right then they would be damned with the ultimate tool of punishment, being ignored by the public at large. Congratulations London Dance Mafia, you blew it big time.
One last thing. The people who decided to use Brightcove, no doubt a bunch of be-suited individuals who all smell of coffee in never ending meetings, should be ashamed of themselves. Why? There are plenty of services out there, on the internet, that do the exact same thing as Brightcove only better and for free. Vimeo and Blip.TV spring to mind.
A wise postman once told us, and we're not kidding, "ask for help not trouble!" So true!
LD.com did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.
Why The Hate?
Wednesday, 22 October, 2008
Why do they do it? Why do they hate dancers so? What have they done to deserve it? Why, why why? What the hell are we talking about you ask?
Among their many crimes in the online space The Place and Londondance.com's most egregious sin is wasting the time of professional dancers looking for work. How are they doing this?
Cast your eyes upward and you will see a button in the middle of our main menu that says 'Auditions'. Click on it and you get, shocking we know, an up to date list of auditions. One click and you're in. No messing about, no waiting, just click and go.
Both The Place and LD.com have other ideas though because they force the unwitting user to log-in with a username and password before they get to see this most privileged information.
Why do you have to log-in? No bloody idea because there is no practical or technical reason for making you do it. To add insult to injury neither site has a 'remember me' button so you have to keep doing it over and over again.
All told it takes about half a dozen clicks and much searching about to find auditions on either site. Dancers are busy, they are constantly moving about (often times literally) with little time to fiddle around with stupid websites hiding information that should be easily available.
So we ask you, not at all politely, to knock it off and let them get at the info with a lot less arsing about. Also, put an RSS feed on your auditions while you're at it, you know what that is, right?
We don't do it our way to be smart or superior. We do it because it makes things really easy for everybody!
On a side note; A promotional email hit our inbox today like a lead pipe on the back of a mobsters head. Londondance.com was promoting an up and coming show at the Royal Albert Hall by Royston Maldoom (which apparently is a real persons name). The email leads of with the following sentence;
"120 young dancers will explode on to the Royal Albert Hall stage in Overture 2012"
A rather unfortunate choice of words we think!
Dance Umbrella Goes Global!
Wednesday, 22 October, 2008
Here in the UK you may not be too familiar with the US cable news channel MSNBC, a 24 hour operation operated by NBC and, oddly enough, Microsoft. With that in mind you may be startled to learn that they ran a quick segment on Dance Umbrella.
Before folks get too excited about this global coverage of a local dance festival in London the nature of the piece, in the "Oddball" section of the show Countdown, is always slightly mocking in tone.
The work under scrutiny is Beau Geste's 'Transports Exceptionnels'. Within this work the dancer in question larks about with a mechanical digger. We're pretty sure Motionhouse did that first years ago but never mind at least you're on the teevee!.
Video is below and if you want to see this work for real you're out of luck because it has come and gone. Looking around the interweb may yeild another showing somewhere though.
Epic Fail?
Monday, 22 September, 2008
It's no secret at all that Arts Council England (ACE) doesn't know its technological arse from its elbow. Only ACE could spend millions on a computer system that doesn't speed up funding applications, doesn't allow you to make funding applications online and doesn't actually do anything at all an industrious individual with an iPhone couldn't achieve for a lot less money.
Whilst browsing around Londondance.com (LD), as we are inclined to do sometimes when there is no washing to be folded, we noticed, on their so-called "video box" page the declaration;
"Video Box is supported by funding from the Arts Council of England."
Leaving aside the fact the funding monolith hasn't been called that for years what is it they (ACE) are supporting, with actual cash money? Your actual cash money?
Video material on the site is culled from promotional videos sent in by dance companies and edited (cough) by the LD hacks into an online clip. This clip is usually posted to support a London performance and, presumably, to promote that perfromance to the general public.
The format and presentation of video material on their site hasn't moved on for years. Videos are small, short and still use the aging Sorenson3 video encoder (surpassed by the far superior H.264 years ago). The rest of the internet, with news, television shows, etc embraced video a long time ago. We've been showing dance online for 7 years now moving the quality and presentation along with the times as much as resources will allow. LD.com however seems stuck in a time warp.
Things may be about to change however because Sadler'sWells.com, for whom LD.com is nothing more than a shill, will soon be launching an online video service. Details are scarce at the moment but, true to form, the site will only feature video material of companies performing at the London theatre. How this video material will be sourced is unclear.
Whether or not this service will spill over into LD.com remains to be seen.
It's curious to us, here in TheLab™, that a few short years ago ACE was unwilling to support Article19 when last we bothered to make a funding application. At the time they "didn't support websites" but now it seems they can't help themselves as they enthusiastically pour money into online media.
More curious still is that Article19 has proven that with no money and just a little bit of imagination you can make it work anyway. This poky little website has been kicking the rest of the arts in the balls for years and only now, at the end of 2008, has one of the country's biggest theatres figured out what century we're in.
Just as websites like Vimeo and Blip.TV have enabled anybody and everybody to host their own video content (with varying degrees of quality) the London hacks have awoken from their slumber and have declared their intention to get down with the kids!
Just a small word of advice, if we may Sadlers Wells (in the guise of Alistair Spalding)
: Try very hard to fight all of your natural instincts to screw this up. Make sure you get it right! Because if you don't the world will vote with its collective clicking fingers and ignore you.
Welcome to the online party, you're only seven years late but let us celebrate the fact you bothered to show up at all.
Just in-case you're curious and you think this is about sour grapes let us clarify. Yes, Article19 gets pissed off when inferior services get money and good ones flounder. That goes for anything though. If you fund the 'Breakin' Convention' and pull funding from an actual dance company all that does is prove to us, and a lot of other people, that you're throwing haymakers in all directions in the desperate hope of landing a punch.
If ACE was to offer us £100K a year for the next ten years they would be told, not at all politely, to go shove it where the sun don't shine!
Sadler's Wells video service starts in October.
No Prize for Old Rope
Wednesday, 17 September, 2008
The Place Prize has been lurching around in London for a while now, they have made it to the semi-finals stage, but unless you live in London and actually attend one of the performances you would probably never know it existed.
The Place themselves will probably give you several reasons, most of which are completely made up, about why the Place Prize is a good idea. Well, let's have a look at five reasons why it's not a very good idea at all.
Winning
How exactly one dance company manages to defeat another company is not fully explained in the online or offline literature for the competition. The very idea that one man's Shakespeare is another man's bird cage liner is lost upon the self important "judges". All of whom are under the misguided impression that their learned (allegedly) decision making process has managed to solve the timeless question of "what is art" or more precisely "what is good art" The answer to those questions is apparently giving someone a cheque for £25,000.
Voting Madness
Initial rounds of the Prize are voted on by the audience. It's not a first past the post decision though (most votes wins) it's a ratings system. Each audience member scores each work out of five and the highest average wins the night.
There are four semi-finals but the winner of each night doesn't go through. The company with the highest average score from all of the performances is the only one that makes the cut. The others are decided, completely arbitrarily, by the "judges".
The main problem here is that the voting is over four nights but the same people, unless they come to all four shows, which is unlikely, won't see the same works. Imagine being asked to vote in an election when you only get to hear one candidate speak in a debate.
As for the judges picking the other four? If the judges are picking the vast majority of the finalists then where does that leave the idea of audience participation?
Also. If the companies have any sense then they will stack the audience with their friends to give them a five star rating and vote the other companies down to hurt their average. If you didn't do that then you're an idiot! Ethical? Yes! Smart? No!
Money
The winner of the 2006 Prize, Nina Rajarani, told us that it costs more to actually make the work and show it at the Prize performances than the total amount of the prize money she actually won. It's like spending £100 on Lottery tickets and winning £10. If there is no financial advantage to playing then why bother playing at all?
Fake Press Coverage
The Place website states;
"We will try to ensure the maximum possible coverage in the media for the competition and the artists involved."
A quick look through Google and Yahoo reveals nothing more than boilerplate pieces in a few newspapers. No significant coverage to be found. Two years ago Article19 was offered interviews with some of the participants, which we accepted. The PR firm handling the event never bothered to set them up though.
Even the website for the event, built into The Place's own haphazard online presence, features no video material at all, apart from a ridiculous video montage featuring 1 second from every entry made to the competition (over 170 of them). If you want a self induced migraine then go knock yourself out watching that.
The evidence would suggest that The Place is not trying hard enough.
X-Factor/Facebook for Dance
It has probably not escaped your attention that almost everything these days has some kind of audience participation/voting element to it. Websites have comments, tv-shows have phone polls, websites have online polls, star ratings, popularity meters, etc ,etc.
The Londondance.com echo chamber even touts the Place Prize as
"a cross between the Turner Prize and the XFactor"
Leaving aside the fact that the Turner Prize is a joke that's not funny do you really want to be compared to the very worst of the "look at me" sector of society? TV talent shows are not something to aspire to, they are something to be derided. They are nothing more than hi-tech karaoke machines. A fast track to fame and fortune for those lacking the will power, skill and fortitude to do things the hard way. Something that dancers (the good ones at least) most certainly are not.
With the Place Prize are we suggesting that dance makers should seek popularity and nothing else? Are the companies that don't take part not worthy of our attention because they have not been subjected to "the vote"?
What of those companies that take part and lose? Should they slope off and take their place in the typewriter maintenance sector having failed miserably to impress the 300 people, if that, that bothered to turn up at the theatre and press the button marked "five stars"?
In short; The Place Prize doesn't make dance more popular, doesn't make better dance, doesn't make dancers more money, doesn't make dance companies more money, doesn't do anything that any other dance festival does a million times better.
FAIL!
Blogging ACE
Wednesday, 6 August, 2008
When it comes to openness and transparency Arts Council England (ACE) bears more than a passing resemblance to a very large brick wall. That is to say, they are the very antithesis of being transparent. If you're still reading after that most tortured of metaphors then we shall proffer a simple apology and continue.
With the previous paragraph in mind it was surprising to stumble across the blog of ACE North East's CEO Mark Robinson.
Now before you get too excited and head over there looking for exposé's on ACE's missteps, eviscerations of Peter Hewitt (do a search on here if you don't know who he is) and other juicy details on the funding monolith, don't bother, you'll find non of that.
Mr Robinson does say, in the blog description that; "[he hopes] to show that people who work for the Arts Council, even Exec Directors, are not faceless, robotic bureaucrats - but maybe I am one and just don't realise it yet. As well as working for the Arts Council I am a widely-published poet and critic."
To prove he does in fact have a face there is a picture of him, looking suitably poetic and sepia toned, at the top left of the page.
Despite the lack of any obvious outspoken opinion it is refreshing to see a minion of the dark side, as we jovially like to call people who work for ACE, expressing some personal views that haven't gone through the PR filter before being unleashed upon the great unwashed.
We'll keep an eye on the blog but any more recommendations to watch a music video of the 'Lovin' Spoonful' (1960's music combo) will result in swift retribution!
Money For Nothing (Tickets for Free)
Tuesday, 29 July, 2008
Do you have some spare time on your hands? Do you want to earn £40,000 per year for just 2 days work per week? Do you have a knighthood and a pin stripe suit? Have you given up actually working for a living and feel like coasting towards retirement? Then Arts Council England is looking for you because they need a new Chairman.
That's right dear readers the funding monolith is seeking a new figure head to er............... do whatever the hell it is that the Chairman of ACE actually does. If we were to hazard a guess it probably involves attending a few meetings, parties and going to the theatre a lot. The going to the theatre part is great because all your tickets are free, let's face it, you're the boss so who's going to deny you?
Except your not the boss of course, that's the CEO, but it's £40,000 for not a lot of work so what are you complaining about?
Current chairman, "Sir" Christopher Frayling has apparently gotten bored and is off to write more books about westerns or play shuffle board or something. He leaves his post having presided over, along with former CEO Peter Hewitt, the debacle of the recent funding review that saw more than 180 arts orgnisations lose their funding and arts funding in general get slapped silly by the Olympics.
Mr Hewitt sneaked out the back door with a £128,000 pay off and hasn't been heard from since. Mr Frayling will probably not get a payoff since nobody knows who he is anyway. Show off hands if you please if you could name the Chairman of ACE before reading this piece?
As we thought, only Smarty McClever at the back had any clue.
The job advert states that ACE are looking for an "...outstanding and committed individual with the credibility, enthusiasm and motivation to lead Arts Council England over the next few years."
They need someone with credibility because ACE has very little and they're hoping that it will rub off on them, like the flu or malaria!
We suspect that the post has already been filled, the job advert is probably for show, but if you want to give it a shot then hit the link below and fill out the form. Having some form of royal honour probably helps a lot, it also helps if, to all intents and purposes, you are completely inert!
In a statement, ACE denied being completely useless, or words to that effect.
On Bended Knee
Tuesday, 29 July, 2008
When it comes to pandering and sucking up nobody does it like the PR folks at Convent Garden's Royal Opera House. When they want to kiss some ass they go all in, charging at the wall full tilt until all you have left is an ROH PR person shaped hole in the wall.
ROH, home of the Royal Ballet and The Royal Opera, both publicly financed, have struck a deal with the tabloid newspaper The Sun to sell all 2,200 tickets for the opening night, in September, of Don Giovani to the paper's readers.
The Sun, like many tabloids, is not a big fan of the arts, the paper doesn't have an arts page or an arts editor, and it's really not a big fan of the arts when that art is paid for with tax payers money. Given a choice between going to the opera and going to hell most Sun readers might, just might, choose the latter.
For a bit of context; today's headlines in The Sun are, predictably, hysterical in nature and include words like "Rage", "Executed", "Lambaarrrghini" (don't ask) and "Cactus abducts pregnant girl" (you really don't want to know). Safe to say that your average Sun reader has little interest in news, the arts, or facts and accurate reporting.
What The Sun does have though is readers and lots off them. Three million people, apparently, buy the paper every day for reasons past understanding (there's a whole book in the psychology behind that we feel sure) and the ROH wants to give exclusive access to its opening night to these folks and these folks alone.
Ticket prices will of course be cut dramatically from £195 for the best seats to about £30. Ironically, Tony Hall, the chief executive of ROH, told the Guardian newspaper that the ticket deal was being done because the average Sun reader "...may not have thought that the Royal Opera House was for them, or [they] felt it was too expensive".
Mr Hall, if you are charging £195 for a ticket then yes, it is too bloody expensive and not just for people who choose, of their own free will, to read tabloid newspapers, but we digress.
You may be wondering what the point of this exercise is? The ROH will tell you that it's all about encouraging the great unwashed to come through the doors. That opera is for everybody, the Royal Opera House itself is for everybody, so come on in and mind the carpets while you're at it!
This is, of course, complete nonsense. The ROH couldn't care less who comes through the front door just as long as somebody comes through the front door and buys one of their very expensive tickets.
PR exercises like The Sun promotional idea are about justifying the massive amount funding given the to ROH every year by Arts Council England, over £24million at the last count. It looks good on an evaluation report when you can say that two thousand or more common folk took the opportunity to come and see 'Don Giovani'. Keeping the politicians, who run the Department for Culture Media and Sport, happy is what this is all about because they need to keep their constituents happy.
It looks even better when you can say that a couple of hundred thousand common folk entered the draw just to be in with a chance of buying the tickets and enjoying a night of culture. These people want it, they love it, and we gave them the chance to experience it, even if it was only the one time because we have to put the ticket prices back up again.
Then the ROH can put out its press releases celebrating their magnanimous behaviour and opining that they have "touched the people" and all is well in the world.
Of course what nobody seems to have thought of is the ranks of regular ROH theater goers buying copies of The Sun so they can enter the draw themselves and score some cheap tickets because they are actually a little bit sick and tired of the sky high prices. Perhaps there will be some kind of tabloid loyalty test involving questions about Britney Spears, football players and "cacti people"?
Whatever way you look at this "promotion" the same conclusion will always be reached. This is pandering of the highest caliber.
Devoid of any workable strategy to encourage people to enjoy live music, become more informed, more cultured, more open to new ideas (which surely begins with the education of very young children) the ROH reaches out to the most vapid, incompetent and idiotic medium of news dissemination in the country.
Instead of unreservedly telling The Sun and its throng of, for want of a better word, readers to go shove their ill-informed opinions where the sun don't shine (no pun intended) they touch the forelock, they capitulate, they pander!
Let's make one thing clear. Here in TheLab™, we thoroughly dislike the ROH's artistic stagnation and the amount of money they spend on the unimaginative drivel they produce year in year out. But, we will defend to the last their right to be artistically useless, whomever pays for it, and it is our money they're spending too!
Political Jab
Tuesday, 22 July, 2008
US politics continues to deliver the very best in political satire with the latest cartoon from the Jib Jab crew who became famous back in 2004 with their 'This Land' video.
Taking it, lightheartedly, in the neck this time around are John McCain and Barack Obama, both presumptive nominees for their respective parties.
Bob Dylan takes a bow with his song 'The Times They Are A-Changin' which has been cunningly reworked into 'Time for Some Campaignin' (the D has been left off on purpose so the spelling police can take it easy for a while).
Politics can be a bit dry sometimes, especially the European kind, so this type of stuff from our American contemporaries is a shot in the arm, especially during what are, depending on your point of view, historic times in US politics.
What has this got to do with dance? Nothing, but you know what, some things don't have anything to do with dance at all!! You can watch the rest of their creation on the Jib Jab website, link below the video.
Firing for Effect
Thursday, 17 July, 2008
Arts Council England (ACE) in their latest attempt to convince everybody that they are not racist and they "get" people that have a skin colour other than white have done what any self respecting organisation does in this day and age, they have launched a website!
Now let's get one thing clear straight way. If you think ACE is racist or biased in any way (with regards to race) then we're pretty sure, here in TheLab™ that you're wrong. If nothing else, being institutionally racist would require a level of organisational coherence that the funding behemoth has failed to demonstrate even once in the last 60 years. So let's move on.
Titled 'Sustained Theatre' (whatever that means) the site lists its aims as follows;
"Sustained Theatre is a network and a call to action for all artists to lobby for positive change. This is the first time we, as artists, have had a real opportunity to take centre stage and have a voice in transforming the future of our national theatre.We want to keep issues relating to Black, Asian, and minority ethnic theatre artists and practitioners alive and in the national debate. To do this, we need you. We want your voices, presenting us with new challenges in order to permanently establish our collective aspirations and standing in the arts.
We need you to become part of the process, engage with us through this website - make your position heard to make a positive difference. Network and connect, research and debate: this website is just the first stage of a long-term strategy."
It's curious that ACE has written the statement in the first person with the phrase "we, as artists". The domain name for the site is owned by ACE and the site is run, presumably by ACE. Who has overall control is not at all clear. There are published articles by various people but who chose them? Who edited them? Who cleared them for publication? Was it artists, was it ACE, was it us? (now that would be spooky! Ed!)
According to the about page this is also the first time "the people" have had the opportunity to voice their concerns or opinions on the great "cultural diversity" debate. Even if we only take that comment in its loosest possible terms it would appear that ACE has been deaf to the comments, opinions and complaints of the masses ever since its inception.
Also, ACE has just ended the great arts debate or "Public Value Enquiry". Are they trying to tell us they weren't listening then? Did they spend not very much money at all just doing something for the effect rather than achieving a tangible outcome? Would we, as a whole, be shocked to find out that might be the case?
At the core of this website, and its vague goals, it's the same tired mantra of achieving or recognising "cultural diversity". Even though nobody seems able to explain exactly what that it is or how to go about it.
In an interview with Article19 Shobana Jeyasingh said;
"I'm a choreographer because I'm interested in dance, I'm not particularly interested in South Asian dance. I think in some ways that the cultural agenda becomes overblown and actually it stops people appreciating what you are trying to make them see which is actually dance making."
One of the top dance makers in Europe is basically asking ACE and the suits in London to knock it off with this nonsense. If a black artist wants to work with a white artist or a Chinese artist or any other kind of artist then they should do it for the right reasons (like mutual interests, complimentary talents, etc), not because ACE is running a social engineering experiment.
If cultural connections are not made for genuine reasons then it's all a facade, it's fake, it's firing for effect.
Update: ACE told us; "The name of the Sustained Theatre website editor is Neesh Iqbal. Neesh has been contracted by the Sustained Theatre Artists Leadership Team (STALT), who are Garfield Allen, Tyrone Huggins, Deborah Williams, Kully Thiarai and Jonathan Man."
Overload
Wednesday, 2 July, 2008
One of TheLab's™ digital stills cameras, when equipped with a 4 Gigabyte memory card, will shoot, almost continuously, 860 high resolution photographs. A project that we are currently covering has already amassed almost 2,000 usable images (meaning they are well exposed and the subject is sharp and in focus).
In our current video archive we have 320 digital video tapes containing more than 500 hours of dance material. Over the years we have shot more than 1,500 hours of video material and tens of thousands of photographs.
During that time we have become fairly adept at archiving, storing, sorting and retrieving this information as required. Mistakes do happen though and equipment fails and sometimes things are lost, for ever! For the most part though we do keep things safe.
The dance profession, and we're generalising here, can only be in a state of complete confusion then when it comes to trying to handle the sheer volume of audio/visual media coming their way from people like us.
Back in the day, when print images ruled and there was no video to speak of, things were slow. Asking a dance company for some images involved waiting a very long time, using an archaic piece of technology called a scanner and wrestling with the nightmare that is "a photocopier".
It would appear that, in some quarters, little has changed (too many dance agencies still have photocopiers for example) and dance organisations and companies are either unwilling or unable to cope with modern day media deadlines or promotional techniques.
Despite a slew of online and offline tools, many of which are free, for storing and sharing a wide range of media there is little evidence that any of them are being used. Some organisations/companies are trying but they're not trying hard enough!
There is a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding of digital images and video, how they work, how they can be distributed and the suitable formats for any given platform. For example, images for print need to be higher resolution than images for the web and video shot on a cell phone is no good for broadcast use. You would be amazed at just how people don't know those kind of fundamentals.
Printed brochures have limited amounts of space and larger brochures cost more money, thereby limiting the photographic potential. But websites have no such constraints so full-on photo stories and video segments have become the norm for media outlets large and small.
It's simple if you know how of course and knowledge comes from training but how much longer is it going to take for that training to happen and how further behind will the profession fall in the meantime?
Investment in equipment and storage is also needed. Massive storage capacity has never been cheaper, it would appear that hard drives are immune from global economic problems. A 1 Terabyte drive, enough storage space for dozens of hours of broadcast quality video and tens of thousands of images, can be had for less than £200.
High powered desktop computers capable of handling this media are less than £800 and come with everything you need.
Yet, the BBC reports today that IT managers, in some cases, are restricting their employees E-mail accounts to a paltry 100Mb. We've seen this type of madness in action at a dance organisation at it drives the employees crazy, they simply don't have the storage space to work with to get their jobs done.
We recently purchased a USB "thumb drive" for £15 with 8 Gigabytes of storage capacity (that's eighty times larger than 100Mb). There is simply is no technological or financial need for such restrictive practices.
What we would suggest, here in TheLab™, is an all out blitz on technology training and equipment investment throughout the dance profession. We don't care if you prefer Mac or PC, Canon or Nikon, online or offline, just get the best tools for the job, learn how to use them and let's get on with it!
We will be very displeased with the next person that asks us to "e-mail" them a DVD!
Ballet Umbrage
Wednesday, 2 July, 2008
The world of classical ballet, at least the very small part of that world in London, is having a bit of a flap , to say nothing of the journalists having a field day with the headline writing, about Ross Stretton and his recently released interview containing details of his time at The Royal Ballet.
In case you're not up to speed let us fill you in. Ross Stretton, an Australian, was briefly the director of The Royal Ballet about 6 years ago. He was forced out under a cloud following disappointing reviews of newly introduced work, unproven allegations concerning misconduct with young female dancers and allegedly falling foul of the high and mighty types at Covent Garden.
Mr Stretton died, from cancer related issues, in 2005. He gave an interview to the National Library of Australia in 2003 with the caveat that it not be released until 40-50 years after his death. Knowing the end was near, due to his illness, he revised those instructions to three years after his death.
You can read a more detailed analysis of the interview at the link below, from the Sydney Morning Herald. Suffice to say that what Mr Stretton said about the Royal Ballet and its inner workings was less than complimentary and the broadsheet hacks have gotten their knives out.
Judith Mackrell in particular, who's id image on her Guardian Blog looks more and more like Delores Umbridge from the Harry Potter Books every day, has a good old time kicking a dead man when he's down.
Ms Mackrell gets started with this delightful comment;
"In the interview, Stretton protests his innocence over the issue of sexually abusive behaviour that was said to have precipitated his exit. At the time this behaviour was neither publicly proved nor disproved, although the fact that other rumours came to light of similar behaviour when Stretton was at American Ballet Theatre suggests this talk wasn't just fabricated by disaffected British journalists."
Were this a political story Ms Mackrell would be accused of a "Rovian Attack", referring to Karl Rove, the one time advisor to George W. Bush. Somebody should tell this particular writer that simply because rumors are repeated it doesn't make them any more true. Loading it with the vague "sexually abusive behavior" gets the readers salivating for more salacious details which never come, simply because there are none.
The comment; "was neither publicly proved nor disproved" is particularly nasty in its overtones. Any assumption of innocence until proven otherwise thrown out the window to further disparage a man unable to speak for himself. But as long it makes Ms Mackrell's point, then what's the harm?
Later in the piece we get to the real crux of the attack. Stretton wasn't thinking clearly, in fact he was probably insane by this point because;
".... when Stretton gave his interview in 2003 we have to wonder how clearly he was thinking and remembering. It's grim to have to point out that his death, in 2005, was caused by melanoma that had spread to his brain, so who knows how his behaviour or mental processes were affected in the period leading up to it."
That's right readers, nothing this man said made any sense because his terminal cancer had completely clouded his mind and he was, to all intents and purposes, just making everything up, or "misremembering" if we go back to our friend Mr Rove.
Ms Mackrell has no medical training, presumably, the MD missing from the end of her name provides a clue about that, and she cites no medical experts when coming to that conclusion.
What went on at the Royal Ballet six years ago will never be known. Mr Stretton is gone and the insiders in London's dance mafia have little or no reason to let the truth come out and anything they say is nothing more than conjecture, unless someone has video or audio recordings.
The most revealing thing about this entire issue is the response from the dance writers, who were called to question by Mr Stretton, and the Royal Ballet themselves.
Covent Garden declined to comment either now or in the future, skulking in their ivory tower plotting the next Kenneth McMillan revival. The writers, as illustrated by Ms Mackrell, can say as they please, safe in the knowledge that nobody really cares what they say. Their cloistered, self flagellating little world protected until the next person they don't like very much comes along and tries to spoil things!
One final note, the comments on Ms Mackrell's piece were closed from the outset, wonder why?
[ The Guardian ]
[ The Sydney Morning Herald ]
Panda Fines
Sunday, 8 June, 2008
You may remember a little while ago a short story regarding the Atlanta Ballet and a dancer in a Panda costume tumbling from the stage into the open, and empty, orchestra pit!
No? What do you mean you forgot about it? Anyway, it would appear that the hammer has fallen on said ballet company with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fining the company $3,500 for failing miserably to protect their dancers from harm. Or words to that effect.
Atlanta Ballet, somewhat ridiculously, is stating that it will fight the decision because;
"The condition and safety of the environment in which our dancers perform has always been of paramount importance to Atlanta Ballet." said spokesman Jeff Al-Mashat.
Mr Al-Mashat goes on;
"We continually evaluate our safety measures, which are consistent with best practices for major dance companies throughout the country. We will be contesting the OSHA citation, while at the same time continuing to review our procedures to assure that the Atlanta Ballet is a leader in industry safety."
If Atlanta Ballet is a "leader" in industry safety we can only imagine the carnage going on in the companies that trail them in the league table of dance companies that may or may not let their dancers fall into really big holes!
Let's get one thing absolutely clear. If one of your dancers falls off the stage wearing a Panda costume they can barely see out of and seriously injures her back in the process then you most assuredly are not showing any concern whatsoever for their health and well being.
If you were, as a company, looking out for your dancers then the orchestra pit would have been closed and there would have been no gaping hole for the dancer to fall into. Gaping holes, dark stages, and vision restricted dancers are a sight-gag set-up worthy of the cheapest sitcom.
The only thing that is certain here is A: Atlanta Ballet are too cheap to have an orchestra, B: Atlanta Ballet's administration are too cheap to pay someone to close the orchestra pit and C: Atlanta Ballet are too cheap to employ a spokesperson that isn't an idiot!
As to the curious and artistically inept decision to have Panda Bears in the 'Nutcracker' in the first place? Only history will judge the Artistic Director and we fear that judgment will be harsh and unforgiving!
Harder Than It Used To Be
Wednesday, 4 June, 2008
The basic principals of subsidising art are, fundementally, to make that art happen when otherwise it would not and to make that art accessible to people whom otherwise could not access it for financial or other reasons.
Let us regale you then with the tale of the confusingly monikered "The Public" art gallery in West Bromwich, a particularly grim part of the UK also know as The Black Country.
Putting aside the fundamental problem that the building itself looks like a cardboard box where the holes for the windows have been cut out by a five year old, it is a perfect example of why so many people become livid at the very mention of the the word "subsidy".
The gallery was constructed using a huge amount of Lottery (or Lotto) funding, the total cost, when it was finished, was £52million (US$102million), about £20million over budget. Arts Council England (ACE) played a large part in handing over the money to make the whole thing possible.
Despite mounting problems and dispatching numerous people to see what was going wrong ACE continued to pump millions more into the project.
You would imagine then that this building is a gleaming edifice of all that is wonderful in the arts and the creative community as a whole! Not even a bit of it because "The Public" never actually opened.
The gallery went into liquidation before it was even finished, two years ago, and has remained closed ever since while people in suits and ties filled out forms, held meetings and tried to explain why a £52million pound tin box in one of the UK's most depressed areas didn't actually work.
Let's pause for just a moment because you have to give the people behind this catastrophe a muted round of applause since it takes a very special kind of incompetence to bankrupt a project before it's even started.
Now, in 2008, the building is set to finally open after being taken over by the local council (something which should immediately set alarm bells ringing), having spent further millions to prop up this hugely misguided project.
At least the thing is open though, so all the problems are solved, right?
Again, not so fast dear reader because this publicly financed, publicly funded art gallery/artists space/community centre is going to charge "the people" £7 (US$14) each just to go inside. If you come in, pay your money and go back outside again then you will have to pay to come back in. That money is not a membership fee, it's a ticket price!
As you can imagine, the great unwashed are not amused. Not only did it cost tens of millions to build, save and keep running you now have to hand over yet more money just to get in. This latest debacle should leave no doubt in your mind as to why people get so thoroughly irritated about public money being used to finance what is, on the face of it, gross stupidity!
It's hard enough defending subsidy of worthy projects executed by talented individuals
from the philistines and the right wing hacks. If ACE and the rest of the people involved with actually trying to do things for the arts could try a little harder not to make that job impossibly difficult then we would very much appreciate it.
The next time somebody, anybody, anywhere gets the idea into their head that a multi-million pound art gallery is going to cure the social deprivation woes of a local community please feel free to stick your head in a bucket of ice water before anybody hears you and takes your ideas seriously!
Should you wish to visit this "space" then feel free to find relevant information on their website, such as it is, apparently £52million doesn't buy you a decent website designer!
Pull The Other One!
Wednesday, 28 May, 2008
It's not at all clear what was going through the mind of the creative team behind Phoenix Dance Theatre's new show 'Cattle Call', if anything at all, but from our perspective, here in TheLab™, somebody, somewhere is making a very big mistake.
The main problem, although there are many with this show, is that it makes no sense. If it made some sense then at the very least that would something, but it doesn't.
From the staging and design we can at least determine that this work has something to with show business and auditions. 'Cattle Call' as a whole however has no idea what it actually is!
Is it a dance piece? Is it a musical? Is it a plane? No, it's a non stop conveyor belt of nothing at all. This work is the equivalent of a BMW 3 Series. It's just "15 feet of car", devoid of character, substance, grace or the faintest modicum of a point!
The music and sound effects are loud and obnoxious (a repeating gunshot being the main culprit) and the dancers are required to continuously move the set around throughout the entire show. Shifting chairs, doors, make-up tables and cages around is fine once but after the fifteenth time all your looking for is the exit.
As a musical it falls flat on its face because the songs, crafted by Richard Thomas who was partly responsible for 'Jerry Springer The Opera', are witless and forgettable. The choreography, such as it is, is more often than not hidden behind the overbearing set design so the poor audience can't actually see what's going on. Not that the dancers can move anyway because the bloody set is in the way!
Interspersed with the dance making are frequent bouts of faux violence, disturbingly aimed toward a pregnant woman. These sequences appear to be there to shock but they smack of little more than a desperate attempt to get some attention.
Adding insult to injury is the ridiculous curtain call procedure when this entire mess finally grinds to a halt. The dancers, obviously under instruction, are required to come out all together and then one at a time (a procedure that takes many minutes to complete) to receive the strained adulation of a distinctly unimpressed audience.
We don't normally go after an individual piece of work like this. If we don't like then OK, we move on and forget about it. But 'Cattle Call' signals a very strange and problematic shift in direction for one of the UK's best known dance companies.
The key phrase here is "dance company". Let us not take dance making down the route of dance film by making "what is a dance piece?" into an idiotic semantic argument. Phoenix don't have the resources to do musicals and 'Cattle Call' is nothing more than a cheap, a very cheap, musical.
It's not that dance companies cannot take on this type of dance theatre because Vincent Dance Theatre, with 'Punchdrunk", covered a similar theme with consummate ease.
We are reminded of Richard Alston's tenure at Rambert, many years ago, when he drove that well established company into a wall at very high speed and was sacked for his efforts. Javier de Frutos (Phoenix's current AD) should take care that he does not suffer the same fate.
Mercifully, Phoenix have numerous other works, actual pieces of choreography, touring alongside 'Cattle Call' which are worth watching.
This musical mess of fractured ideas and half baked social commentary should be cast back into the trash can it was so obviously pulled from.
