The Royal Ballet: La Bayadère, London, November 2018

[Xandra Newman]

It's normal you see their ribs no, they don't have an inch of fat, and especially when they push their upper torso forward it's very easy to reveal the ribs. You won't see ribs on a fat High Priest  

[LinMM]

Didn't Samuel Taylor Coleridge the poet compose the epic poem "The Ancient Mariner" under the influence of opium? 

 

I dont think anyone would would think that reading the Ancient Mariner must be dangerous because it was conceived with the help of drugs..... most of us know the possible dangers of long term drug taking ....and that it is usually pretty un advisable to do so ....but would not dismiss the poem or poet because of this. 

 

I think some things can be taken too seriously and sexual betrayal and jealous lovers and dangerous serpents have been around since the beginning of modern man I should think....or even in Neanderthal times probably....perhaps we get it from them ...in the 2 or 3 percent of genes still in our genome from way back!! 

 

 

[Sim]

Not to mention Byron, Baudelaire, and any other number of non-lascivious Easterners.  But I think the point that was trying to be made is that western ballets don't portray Europeans smoking opium.  Perhaps that's because the ballets in question aren't actually about Europeans.

[Fonty]

8 minutes ago, Xandra Newman said:

It's normal you see their ribs no, they don't have an inch of fat, and especially when they push their upper torso forward it's very easy to reveal the ribs. You won't see ribs on a fat High Priest  

 

Personally, I don't find lots  of bony rib cages an attractive thing to look at.  Perhaps lascivious Easterners are a bit more fleshy? 🙂

[Lizbie1]

2 hours ago, John Mallinson said:

The broadcast discussion between Indian choreographer Shobana Jeyasingh and Olga Evreinoff is very interesting in relation to thoughts about authenticity, cultural stereotypes and so on. Jeyasingh is very emphatic that the ballet (which she seems to enjoy) has very little to do with India, everything to do with 19th Century fascination with exotic orientalist fantasy.

 

I don't disagree, but I think it's important to add that she made it very clear that the audience's awareness of this important distinction is a pre-requisite and not a basis for the ballet's defence - I'm not splitting hairs, there's a significant difference. We might take it as read that the audience knows this, but I don't believe that this has always been so, particularly in its native Russia.

[Nogoat]

Re 'orientalism'...

 

I remember coming out of a thoroughly brilliant Sylvia in Nov of last year and turning to Twitter to see how many others had enjoyed the giddy mix of music, dance, lust, love, anger, violence, mythology, exoticism, sensuality, drugs (alcohol!), etc as much as I had. But my heart sank when I came across this tweet...

 

"#rohSylvia Act 2 orientalism just gets worse on second viewing so join the #decoloniseROH campaign to eradicate dubious racist stereotypes"

 

I recognise that we all have particular sensitivities, and that my sensitivities differ from others, but I do worry about perspective and proportion. For example, I'm really concerned about the rate at which the planet's ecosystem is being systematically destroyed, so should I be trying to set the Twitter-sphere alight with angry tweets about Solor normalising the killing of the apex-predator that is the tiger? Well, no, because I recognise that neither the Royal Ballet nor La Bayadere is trying to get me to accept or even take up big-game hunting.

Similarly, La Bayadere is not trying to tell me "this is how it is in the Orient", or even "this is how it was in the Orient back in the day"; I realise that La Bayadere's depiction of the Orient is a popular representation formed at the time, designed to entice audience attendance. We now live in an incredibly interconnected world, and it's easy to forget just how insular most people were a century of so ago; in vying for people's attention, information about far-flung places would emphasise the sensational (and sex and death and drugs, especially when mixed with religion or the aristocracy, are still pretty standard sensationalist fare for most communication outlets...).

 

So, we don't end up on this forum discussing how disappointing Giselle is because it depicts supernatural entities who decide to live in the forest, or even how foolish people were, back in the day, to believe such superstitious nonsense; no, we accept that the plot of Giselle is a vehicle to deliver musings on those age-old issues of love and death.

Nor do we doubt that a mythological being such as Orion the Hunter would be floored by a couple of glasses of wine, and so dismiss Sylvia as 'unbelievable'.

Nor do we leave Mayerling and Anastasia early because we cannot accept Archduchess Sophie and Rasputin being on stage at certain places in the plot, as in reality they were both dead before the events depicted.

No, we recognise that we are watching a narrative ballet, not a historical documentary, and the purpose of the narrative is to portray emotional truth rather than factual truth.

 

I think the main reason most of us do not feel these ballets are offensive or even 'dangerous' is because they are not pushing a message that has a specific purpose - ballet's usual subjects of sex/love and death are simply too universal.

 

Nevertheless, there is a specific element of the Bolshoi's La Bayadere that I object to, and which I hope does not appear next summer; that, of course, is the piccaninnies. So why am I 'happy' to accept the 'orientalism' but not the piccaninnies? I think it's because, in the real world, there are active, negative, social and political connotations related to the ideas of 'blacking up' and also the word 'piccaninnies' that are not associated with the more general 'orientalist' trope of La Bayadere. So the presence of piccaninnies on stage is overtly political in a way that the general oriental exoticism isn't, so the response is different.

 

The original poster mentioned The Judas Tree. I find this work a very difficult watch, but I would hate to see it removed from the repertoire (gradually or otherwise) and I want to continue to go to see it. In trying to explain why, I am drawn to the quote by Kahil Gibran in the Judas Tree section of the 'National Celebration' programme from last year ; 'as a single leaf turns not yellow but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree, so the wrongdoer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all.' By removing this ballet from the repertoire, we 'hide' the misogyny and sexual violence it addresses and are complicit in its perpetuation. By keeping it in the repertoire, we become complicit only in its continued exposure and, hopefully, that exposure will help us as a society to address the issues represented. 

The idea of facing up to difficult subjects is, of course, prevalent in a number of recent offerings. I've been to see Akram Khan's Giselle perhaps ten times in the theatre and twice in the cinema, but it was only with the last cinema showing that something really hit home - almost shocked me. In Act 1 Giselle dies, but we don't see her death. In Act 2, however, the murderer is forced to replay the killing. I was shocked at how violent that killing was; the violence seemed protracted and excessive - almost gratuitous. The murder in Act 1 was 'hidden', but it was still a murder. The murder in Act 2 was shocking, but it was still the same murder - the same violence by the same man against the same woman. In Act 1 I was sad she had died; in Act 2 I was angry she had died, and died that way. We have to face up to the nasty side of human nature, not hide it, even if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

 

[Odyssey]

2 hours ago, LinMM said:

Didn't Samuel Taylor Coleridge the poet compose the epic poem "The Ancient Mariner" under the influence of opium? 

 

I dont think anyone would would think that reading the Ancient Mariner must be dangerous because it was conceived with the help of drugs..... most of us know the possible dangers of long term drug taking ....and that it is usually pretty un advisable to do so ....but would not dismiss the poem or poet because of this. 

 

I think some things can be taken too seriously and sexual betrayal and jealous lovers and dangerous serpents have been around since the beginning of modern man I should think....or even in Neanderthal times probably....perhaps we get it from them ...in the 2 or 3 percent of genes still in our genome from way back!! 

 

 

It was Khubla Khan which, according to Coleridge, remained unfinished because he was interrupted from his trance by a person from Porlock! So allowing oneself to become  distracted is  the only potential danger that I can see.

[LinMM]

In defence of Coleridge and his opium addiction he did have poor health and initially took the drug to relieve problems with this ( Anna C pointed out this was often used for "medicinal" purposes at the time) perhaps akin to barbiturate addiction today? 

I don't think the Ancient Mariner was the only work he wrote while under the influence but he seems to have been an amazingly creative human being inspite of everything.

 

sorry to bring in the Neanderthal reference in my post but couldn't resist it as was fascinated to read an article that we still do have their genes within ours....so of course can blame all our bad behaviour on them!! ( although ironically in this context it is mainly bad health they may have passed on to us!) 

 

I think ( but not sure) that jmb may have been worried that Indian people seeing this ballet may have been offended by it but I personally don't think so .....though am probably basing this on one Indian ballet friend who seems to obviously have a very good sense of humour!! 

 

Nogoat your post was quite moving and I certainly agree with you that we need to face up to difficult subjects.....and why I admire Macmillan for doing so ....the Judas tree is an uncomfortable watch ....but to me the ballet serves us with a reminder that not all is lovely in the world and can reflect back some uncomfortable truths existing in modern society. 

 Bayadere also touches on Good and Evil but the former ballet is much bleaker as it is more real. 

Bayadere is more on the old fairytale version of Good and Evil where real evil will be destroyed and true love is rewarded ....at least in the afterlife ......usually by the redemptive love of the female!!! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JohnS]

Many thanks Nogoat.  For my part it wasn't so much the cultural inexactitudes as the sheer tedium of some of the oriental cliches that grated.  I'm afraid I found the High Brahmin's retinue particularly irritating - the 'extras' who to me looked pretty disengaged, almost embarrassed to be on stage,  and added nothing to the story.  And, sotto voce, I'm also pretty ambivalent about the Bronze Idol where his stage exit rather added in my mind to the High Brahmin's absurdity.  Given how fabulously Act 2 works, and fully recognising that I've only seen La Bayadere the once, I can't help thinking the production would benefit from cutting back on some of the excesses (and the 'extras').  What I found genuinely moving was the Nikiya/Gamzatti/Solor triangle and the fabulous Shades and it's these aspects which make me want to see the Ballet again.  Ticket booked for tomorrow night's live cinema relay in Keswick, a picture house in continuous operation since 1913 and still I'm pleased to say going strong.

[penelopesimpson]

Goodness me, I’m almost afraid of going to my first performance on Friday.

 

Are we not over intellectualising it?  Bayadere is not a play by John Osborne or David Hare, it is a piece of froth depicted through stunning dancing against a colourful backdrop.  If we accept that the storylines are fantasies, then why would we expect the setting to be based on reality?

[Sophoife]

9 hours ago, Sim said:

But I think the point that was trying to be made is that western ballets don't portray Europeans smoking opium.

 

And I was sure Greg Horsman's Bayadère for Queensland, West Australian and Winnipeg Ballets was set in the British Raj and the Solor part was a European so an example of a European smoking opium. Nope, oops, he's the son of the Maharajah of Cooch Behar, who's in love with fellow Indian the temple dancer Nikiya, but whose father has agreed a treaty with the East India Company that betrothes Solor to...the British Governor-General's daughter Edith. That's even less likely than that low-caste Solor is rewarded with the hand of the Rajah's daughter Gamzatti, as in Stanton Welch's version! Golly I think I'm going to stick with Makarova!

[jmb]

Wow! I'm sorry. I didn't mean to incite a firestorm. I thought I was writing an utterly uncontroversial analysis of 19th century attitudes to 'the east' as seen in LB. There is a great deal of scholarly work on the 19th century Orientalist attitudes that underpinned colonialism, especially with regard to art and literature. (If you're interested, Wikipedia's entry on Edward Said's Orientalism gives a useful introduction.) And I wasn't trying to imply that LB reflects or reflected reality. Of course it doesn't. But it does reflect attitudes, and that is why I characterise it as dangerous. Specifically, 'the east' (primarily the Arab world, south Asia and east Asia) was portrayed as sexualised, exotic, and violent, and I think you can see this in LB. That doesn't mean that LB should not or cannot be watched, but I would argue that we need to be aware of the attitudes it reflects. That's what I meant by unexamined assumptions.

I also did not mean to imply that Europeans did not smoke opium, though I admit that poor expression meant that that is what I did imply. Nor does my analysis take away from the very real suffering of individuals, as for example, Solor. But I am really sorry that so many forum members were annoyed by what I said. 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by jmb

[penelopesimpson]

Annoyed?   No

 

Amazed?  Yes, because labelling a piece of fairytale nonsense as dangerous seems absurd.  As I said in my earlier response, we are not children.  We love our fairy tales but that doesn’t mean we believe in fairies. In today’s politically correct world,many of us see the Arts as one of the few areas left for free expression which is probably why we react somewhat vehemently when PC revisionism rears it’s head.  

[AnneMarriott]

18 minutes ago, penelopesimpson said:

 

 

 In today’s politically correct world,many of us see the Arts as one of the few areas left for free expression which is probably why we react somewhat vehemently when PC revisionism rears it’s head.  

OK but perhaps sometimes the vehement reaction is disproportionate to the unintentional offence caused?  (Puts on tin hat).

[Geoff]

1 hour ago, jmb said:

and that is why I characterise it as dangerous.

 

As someone whose career oddly straddles both academia and showbusiness, might I add a point of clarification, as I think the word ‘dangerous’ is being misunderstood? When the word is used in a scholarly way - as I believe jmb is using it - it does not have quite the same flavour as in everyday use (such as ‘playing with knives is dangerous’). So just as, say, the word ‘attitude’ means something specific and different when used in a ballet context, so do words like ‘dangerous’ change when used in the academy.

 

One can probably safely replace ‘dangerous’ with ‘problematic’, as that gets to almost the same place. Hope that helps smooth out what to me seems to be a linguistic misunderstanding. 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Geoff

[Sim]

43 minutes ago, AnneMarriott said:

OK but perhaps sometimes the vehement reaction is disproportionate to the unintentional offence caused?  (Puts on tin hat).

I think that's subjective, as with most things on a forum such as this.  Some will think it's disproportionate, others will think it's justified.  Neither is right or wrong;  it's simply a matter of how someone feels.

[bridiem]

30 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

As someone whose career oddly straddles both academia and showbusiness, might I add a point of clarification, as I think the word ‘dangerous’ is being misunderstood? When the word is used in a scholarly way - as I believe jmb is using it - it does not have quite the same flavour as in everyday use (such as ‘playing with knives is dangerous’). So just as, say, the word ‘attitude’ means something specific and different when used in a ballet context, so do words like ‘dangerous’ change when used in the academy.

 

One can probably safely replace ‘dangerous’ with ‘problematic’, as that gets to almost the same place. Hope that helps smooth out what to me seems to be a linguistic misunderstanding. 

 

 

This is helpful and may well be true, Geoff; but I think that language matters and should be used in a way that's appropriate to the context. This forum is not an scholarly journal where certain linguistic conventions may be taken for granted - it's a public discussion forum. (Having said which, even in academic circles language can be misused and misinterpreted.)

[AnneMarriott]

40 minutes ago, Sim said:

I think that's subjective, as with most things on a forum such as this.  Some will think it's disproportionate, others will think it's justified.  Neither is right or wrong;  it's simply a matter of how someone feels.

Indeed, but as has been aired on this forum before, it's not the way someone thinks but the way it's expressed that counts.

[Richard LH]

23 hours ago, jmb said:

Temple dancers are restricted to Hindu temples, so no 'monks', and especially no monks wearing something vaguely reminiscent of Buddist robes

These  are not supposed to be 'monks', but  Hindu temple priests, and as far as I can see their RB stage garb appears broadly redolent of what such priests have typically worn.  

23 hours ago, jmb said:

the dancers would not be flaunting their naked middles - that's a European fantasy.

Like these ?

Edited November 13, 2018 by Richard LH

[Richard LH]

12 hours ago, JohnS said:

 I'm afraid I found the High Brahmin's retinue particularly irritating - the 'extras' who to me looked pretty disengaged, almost embarrassed to be on stage,  and added nothing to the story.

But I think the HB would look odd on his own at the temple if  none of his normal retinue were there, if that is what you mean John. Surely the presence of his acoyltes is important and relevant to the depiction of temple ceremony. 

[Richard LH]

13 hours ago, JohnS said:

What I found genuinely moving was the Nikiya/Gamzatti/Solor triangle and the fabulous Shades

Totally agree with those, and I would add off the cuff the Veil Dance, the Ankle Scarf Dance, the Fan Dance and the Candle Dance, as well as the Act 1 entrance of Nikiya, the Act 1 Nikiya/Solor PDD, and the Act 2 Gamzatti/Solor Adagio PDD, also Nikiya's poignant "snake" dance ... all accompanied by such beautiful music. Completely enchanting!

Edited November 13, 2018 by Richard LH

[Sim]

38 minutes ago, AnneMarriott said:

Indeed, but as has been aired on this forum before, it's not the way someone thinks but the way it's expressed that counts.

Exactly, which is why people took exception to jmb’s original post. 

[Sim]

31 minutes ago, Richard LH said:

These  are not supposed to be 'monks', but  Hindu temple priests, and as far as I can see their RB stage garb appears broadly redolent of what such priests have typically worn.  

Like these ?

These also show where the western choreographers might have got the idea for the bent wrist with hand parallel to the floor that the original post was questioning. 

[penelopesimpson]

Re use of the word dangerous, I think I took it as the OP intended, I.e. ‘dangerous’ to presume that because we see a culture or nationality depicted in a certain way in entertainment, that we might think such depictions accurately represented the culture.

 

My point was that you would have to be remarkably ill-educated and insular to make such a judgement.  Traditional ballet is not a subtle art form and characterisations are inevitable in communicating identities, the equivalent of pages of exposition in a novel.

 

i think the OP made an interesting point that has been enjoyable to debate.

[Richard LH]

13 hours ago, JohnS said:

Ticket booked for tomorrow night's live cinema relay in Keswick, a picture house in continuous operation since 1913 and still I'm pleased to say going strong.

Hope you have a great evening John. I'm envious of your home area, but not your trip down, and back, to see London ballet!

Here is the cast list for tonight ...http://static.roh.org.uk/showings/la-bayadere-live-2018/en.pdf?_ga=2.31492349.238786101.1542104883-1787453016.1542104883

albeit by no means  as comprehensive as the lists provided at the ROH itself.

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Richard LH

[Nogoat]

3 hours ago, jmb said:

Wow! I'm sorry. I didn't mean to incite a firestorm.

 

3 hours ago, jmb said:

But I am really sorry that so many forum members were annoyed by what I said.

 

Please don't apologise, jmb! Your post didn't 'annoy' me -  if anything, you did me a favour in making me reflect on (and clarify my thinking on) where and why I set certain 'boundaries' in my head. And the discussion on this forum around your comments will contribute (in a very, very, very small way!) to the ongoing dialogue by which those boundaries are eventually reflected in society. I would call a societal boundary at which we can't view or discuss what's on the other side in order to determine its position a wall - and I don't want to live behind a wall.

 

NB: Luke Jennings' Nov 11th review of LB has appeared (presumably from the Observer) on the Guardian website - and it includes a reference to orientalism...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/nov/11/la-bayadere-royal-ballet-review-marianela-nunez-natalia-osipova

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Nogoat
new info...

[Lizbie1]

29 minutes ago, AnneMarriott said:

Indeed, but as has been aired on this forum before, it's not the way someone thinks but the way it's expressed that counts.

 

And when more than one poster is at it, it gives the impression that minority opinions are there to be shouted down.

[Sim]

2 minutes ago, Lizbie1 said:

 

And when more than one poster is at it, it gives the impression that minority opinions are there to be shouted down.

That’s not true.  Anybody can post their opinion.  No-one is being shouted down.  

[Fonty]

While I found these latest posts interesting to read, I don't think classical ballet can or should be subject to this kind of scrutiny.  A note in the programme about the fictitious setting explains why the girls are wearing harem pants and the men have turbans on their heads.  But I never put LB into any historical context, I simply enjoyed the fact that  it was set somewhere exotic, which has led to some gorgeous costumes and scenery that look wonderful in stage lighting.  Leaving aside my previous remarks about bare ribs, I do think the costumes are lovely.  

 

It would be a bit boring if every classical ballet was inspected by the PC brigade.  I can just imagine it.  Get rid of all that royalty, it is offensive to republicans, represents a time when the masses were repressed and starving, and those palace settings only serve to show the complete waste of money.  Get rid of tutus, it is sexist to have the girls flashing their thighs and showing their gussets to the audience, and objectifies women.  Get rid of all those ballets that show the female succumbing to the evil charms of a male, and requiring another man to rescue her.  It presents the wrong image when women these days should be strong and independent.

 

Bye bye the traditional Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, Giselle, ..........  🙂

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Fonty

[Lizbie1]

17 minutes ago, Sim said:

That’s not true.  Anybody can post their opinion.  No-one is being shouted down.  

 

Well that’s how it appeared to me.

[Pas de Quatre]

And if we start on Opera, Operetta & Musical theatre, we would also have to say goodbye to a large chunk of the repertoire!   

[Fiz]

All ballet, some plays, opera and operetta require a suspension of belief if we want to enjoy it to the fullest extent so I do that. 

[Nogoat]

34 minutes ago, Fonty said:

It would be a bit boring if every classical ballet was inspected by the PC brigade. 

 

Unfortunately, that brigade can be quite vocal and high-profile; here is an extract from Luke Jennings' LB review (my emphasis)...

 

"But there’s no getting around the fact that this is a deeply problematic ballet. With its inanely capering fakirs, lustful priests and blithe appropriation of Hindu, Islamic and Buddhist religious and cultural motifs, it’s pretty much a compendium of 19th-century orientalist attitudes.

Some commentators, bringing contemporary sensibilities to bear, advocate relocating the work to a non-specific, non-Indian setting and cutting out its offensive elements. Others would like to see the work excised from the ballet repertoire altogether."