Director who smeared a critic in dog poo is learning that revenge backfires

Natasha Pszenicki
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

We’ve all been tempted, haven’t we? In moments of fantastical rage or quiet fury, we dream of getting back at our critics/haters/nemeses (delete as appropriate) in spectacular fashion. But how far would you really go? It would take some chutzpah to match Marco Goecke, the German ballet director now infamous for smearing Wiebke Hüster, a critic, with dog faeces in the interval of a performance of his ballet In the Dutch Mountain.

It is the ultimate in short-term gain and long-term pain. In what I imagine (never having smeared anyone with any faeces of any sort myself) were those blissful moments when Goecke felt his revenge completed, he was probably happy. I doubt he is happy now. The world beyond Germany now knows his name — not as an artist, but as a man with thin skin who has bags of steaming dog poo easily to hand.

As is the case with such actions (he is under investigation by police), he has dragged others into his rather foul (and fouled) spotlight. I think not just of Hüster, who has very understandably complained in the strongest terms of his “physically brutal violence,” but also his equally innocent daschund, Gustav.

For it was poor Gustav who unwittingly played a key role in this modern morality tale, just for emptying his bowels at what proved to an inopportune moment (a bag of his fresh droppings were thus to hand for Goecke). None of us, of course, can choose the circumstances of our stardom. But, though I do not personally know Gustav, I suspect he would not have chosen this route to his 15 minutes of fame. Who would?

Such are the consequences, of course, of the childish act of his master, who, by the way, remains truculent. In a statement to German media, Goecke did apologise to Hüster “for my absolutely unacceptable act”. Unfortunately, he continued, asking the media to “rethink a certain form of destructive and hurtful reporting that damages the whole cultural sector”. Hardly the unqualified apology needed. Clearly, he is still running hot. He has also illustrated one of the many pernicious aspects of revenge. It is never clear, when indulging in this enticing but often ruinous practice, who will really emerge the most stained. Even when you smear your opponent in dog poo.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in

MORE ABOUT