What do you think?
Rate this book


643 pages, Hardcover
First published November 2, 2010
We are left with a seeming paradox: dance and dancers thrived in a repressive, ideologically driven police state. Worse, as we shall see, they produced their best and most lasting art in its cruellest years. It is easy to assume that art demands freedom, that creativity and the human spirit flourish only when individuals can openly express themselves, unfettered by outside authority and an oppressive state. But the Soviet example suggests otherwise: dance succeeded because of the state, not in spite of it. And if Soviet ballet did finally lapse into an artistic coma, paralysed by years of political pressure and sloganeering, we must nonetheless recognise that even then, at its lowest point, the Soviet system continued to produce some of the world's greatest dancers and most impressive ballets. Where did they come from? What was it that nourished their art?
It remains the central fact of MacMillan's career that he consistently sacrificed his talent to an obsessive desire to make ballet something it was not. He wanted ballet to be brutal and realistic, a theatrical art that could capture a generation's disillusionment and chart the depths of his own troubled emotions. It was an understandable impulse, but MacMillan completely misread the tradition he had inherited; or perhaps he believed in it too much. Instead of pushing ballet in new directions, he revealed its fundamental limits - and then failed to recognise them. Classical ballet is an art of formal principles; take those away and it disintegrates into crude pantomime. This does not mean that ballet cannot portray inner pain or even social despair, but it can only do so on its own terms, within its own bounds. MacMillan's ballets showed too many lapses in judgement and taste. By the end, he had reduced ballet's eloquent language to a series of barely audible grunts.


[B]allet took its identity from the aristocracy: without the weight and example of a court or nobility behind it, ballet training could easily lapse into a narrow and meaningless set of gymnastic exercises.Yep, folks, you heard it here. Ballet is for the rich, with the poor serving as easily abused clay. That's all. Everyone go home.
She is the pink-tights-and-toes-shoes ballerina of girlish dreams—and feminist nightmares.Pretty remarks are part of why this book's not going to last for very long. I got decently valuable bits and pieces out of it, much as I do out of anything I persist to the point of completition of, but this mining process was heavily interfered with by Homans vacillating between one opinion pool and another, cultivating the conservatives at one point, the liberals on another, the poor in one section, the rich in another, the heteronormativity in on period, queerness in another (where someone can at least be bisexual, which means Homans should not be allowed within at least fifty feet of any queer person), and on and on to an absolutist scathing degree targeted at the unfortunate antagonist of the chapter, either focusing or glossing over inordinately across the board depending on the country, the century, the gender, and who, literally came out on top in ballet canon. That end point was what really dictated Homans' attention span, along with a general bad faith ignorance when it came to the persistent issues of economic inequality as inevitable result of capitalism, antisemitism, and patriarchal abuse that made the ballet into the gilded monster of yesteryear and today. The really unforgiveable note, though, is how Homans sits back at the end and complains about it dying all around her, when she'd likely have the exact same attitude during the early 20th c., or the 19th, or the 18th, or even back at the very beginning of the development of what would be known as ballet, for the simple reason that, when she's not imbibing the positive judgments of the higher ups, the only critical thing she's capable of doing is whining. Anyone can see that the white, rich, hateful, and abusive architecture that for so long formed the crux of ballet was destined to peter out in impotent rehashings of the same old sadisms. It's the ultimate destination for any art that uses and abuses the vulnerable and thinks it sustains itself by anything other than money and invested time.
...poorly educated and ill-suited to lead an art...I'm fine with reading opinions. Indeed, I concern myself with reading them every single day, as the knowledge that my unconscious solipsism translates directly to potential deadly violence means such enforced attention payment is a must. What I'm not fine with is polemical brutality disguised as impartial nonfiction, a gleeful apologism decrying all who don't fit or refuse to fit, founding in the sort of decrepit malaise that marks the end of any pompous bigot whose life was spent in the service of believing itself worth more than others. In other words, disappointing. If I wanted to watch a bunch of hateful shitwads trying to outrun their chickens coming home to roost, I'd watch Fox News.
Tudor was known for breaking his dancers emotionally. He did this largely through humiliation, with cutting personal attacks that pulled dancers into a spiral of self-hatred[;] it was a deliberate strategy.This is why we can't have nice things.