I found Andy Franks’ review of Michael Flatley’s “Lord of the Dance” on Nov. 28 repulsive. His description of the performance as “a loose arrangement of skits” is mistaken.
Such dance performances are complex, with specific scenes ordered to tie the storyline together. This is insulting to the dancers because they put hours and hours into their performances.
The tone of his Daily Forty-Niner article made the “Lord of the Dance” sound like a joke. If he wasn’t going to take it seriously, he shouldn’t have covered the event. He wrote, “Understanding this show’s theatrics made me realize just how much my tastes have matured.” Franks is not as mature as he thinks.
He made that very clear in the ignorant way he wrote this article. The “deliciously simple plot” wasn’t so simple. He’s just an idiot. I want to know who he talked to in the audience who said that they wanted a “deliciously simple plot.”
Someone with normal brain capacity would understand that there was a lot more to this story than the “deliciously simple plot” that he got out of it. His desire to put his hopes to “retire to the land of sexy wood nymphs” after finals week only announces to everyone that he isn’t getting any.
He wrote, “[W]hen guys are dancing together they are fighting and when guys are dancing with girls they are having sex.” When a man and woman dance together it does not always represent sex. People can dance together in different contexts, such as being passionate or celebratory. There’s different ways to show passion and one way is through dance.
Dance is supposed to be a universal language, but he obviously isn’t cultured enough to decipher it.
– Melissa Ford, junior fashion design major
