LEARNING THE CRAFT:CHOREOGRAPHY

[FLOSS]

On Saturday evening I was at Sadler's Wells and as I watched  Transfigured Night the thought came to me that Tudor had made far better use of the music in his ballet Pillar of Fire.This plus sitting through several performances of the sprawling mess that is Acosta's Carmen set me thinking about the models that choreographers use, often unconsciously, when they make their first ballets. Ashton took "private lessons with Petipa"  but he also had considerable experience of the commercial theatre. It was this commercial experience which Markova said made him so good at timing.MacMillan had Ashton to learn from and Cranko,a consummate man of the theatre, as a friend and advisor.

 

The young choreographer learns a great deal from what he/she sees and dances.A diet of Petipa and MacMillan with the occasional dash of Ashton,Balanchine and Robbins and swathes of MacGregor is not sufficiently varied for either the audience or dancers particularly those with choreographic talent.Perhaps showing the full range of Ashton's works on a regular basis and the addition of some of Tudor's major works to the company's permanent repertory would be a good  starting point.It would broaden the range of choreographic experience of both audience and dancers and expose them to the works of two of the greatest choreographers of the twentieth century both of whom had a real understanding of balletic structure, the ability to tell a story succinctly,to entertain and,in Tudor's case, to reveal his character's psychological states

Edited November 11, 2015 by FLOSS

[jack.b]

Private lessons with Petipa !! Please !

Edited November 11, 2015 by jack.b

[Irmgard]

How I agree with you Floss about Tudor!  It would be so wonderful to have "Dark Elegies" and "Lilac Garden" revived every so often in the UK.  I had the privilege of watching him rehearse Leslie Browne in "Lilac Garden" in one of the 'dungeon' studios at the Met many years ago (1980?) and it was a revelation.  I also had a very illuminating conversation about it with Maude Lloyd (the original Caroline) a few years later.  I did see ABT's revival when they brought it to Sadler's Wells recently and, even though it wasn't a first-class revival, the sheer brilliance of the choreographic structure was obvious.  I also agree that it would be wonderful to see more of the full catalogue of Ashton's work.  Most of it has been notated but, of course, needs someone very familiar with his style to bring it to life.  He was also very keen on Nijinska as a choreographic role model so it is a shame that "Les Noces" is done so rarely and I don't think "Les Biches" has been done at ROH since the early 1980s.

[Bluebird]

 I don't think "Les Biches" has been done at ROH since the early 1980s.

 

There were several performances of Les Biches in 2005 (part of a mixed bill) Here's a link to the first night cast:

http://www.rohcollections.org.uk/performance.aspx?performance=2098&row=40

[Irmgard]

There were several performances of Les Biches in 2005 (part of a mixed bill) Here's a link to the first night cast:

http://www.rohcollections.org.uk/performance.aspx?performance=2098&row=40

Thanks, Bluebird - I obviously missed that one!

[FLOSS]

It is strange how both Royal Ballet companies have neglected so much of their own heritage and the works that successive directors have acquired for them because of their significance such as Massine's Choreatium,Le Tricorne, Mam'zelle Angot and Boutique Fantasque which Ashton regarded as Massine's masterpiece or Madam's The Prospect Before Us which someone went to great trouble to revive. It seems to me that director's like de Valois, Ashton, Wright and even MacMillan had a real sense of the need to maintain certain works in the repertory so that audienecs and dancers could experience them.It is almost as if the director who is or has been a choreographer is,for the main part, more likely to see the need to maintain major works from the past than a non choreographer. However David Bintley seems to have ignored most of the major twentieth century works that Peter Wright mounted for SWRB as it gradually developed from the ashes of the New Group. When did either company last perform Petrushka for example or mount a decent revival of Les Sylphides?

 

Neither Royal Ballet company performs an adequate range of Ashton's works on a regular basis.Apart from 2004 when a wide range of Ashton's works were revived the average year at Covent Garden will give us an opportunity to see Ashton's Dream,A Month in the Country or Rhapsody and every three years or so Fille is revived. But as Fille is not an annual part of the repertory and is rarely performed at a time when a Family audience could attend such as the Christmas or Easter holidays the company is usually reduced to advertising it to sell tickets.

 

Why does a company that has Fille in its repertory need to produce a ballet taster programme? I know that small children have weak bladders and a short attention span but Fille has too much that holds the attention for most small children to want to leave the auditorium while it is being performed.

 

Part of the problem is that ballet is such a "serious" art form that the audience has to be protected from frivolity or wit to ensure that the temple is not polluted.It seems to me that the ultra serious nature of ballet explains the lack of variety in many mixed bills and the absence of a significant proportion of the Ashton repertory at Covent Garden.Ashton is perceived as a light weight choreographer while MacMillan is a serious,innovative one who extended the range of subjects that were deemed suitable for ballet.But was he that innovative?Some of Tudor's works include challenging subject matter but they are addressed in a far more succinct manner than MacMillan generally managed.Then there is the range of works that Tudor produced, it seems to me that Tudor's range was wider than MacMillan's.It is much easier to describe a typical MacMillan ballet or for that matter a typical Balanchine one than it is to describe a typical Tudor or Ashton ballet.It is because of their range,quality,clarity and succinctness that Ashton's and Tudor's works should be a living part of both companies' repertories rather than works that are at best revived on a limited basis from time to time.

 

The last Les Biches revival in 2005 was somewhat variable.It wasn't too bad if you saw the right cast Yanowsky was fine as the Hostess but Bussell didn't really seem to understand the nature of the role at all but then elegant,sophisticated allure wasn't really something you associated her with.The section when the hostess is leaning back on the sofa watching the two young men,like a cat watching a couple of mice, clearly deciding who she will have first,failed to register when Bussell performed it.

 

I know that Monica Mason said that it was very difficult to get the dancers to recreate the atmosphere of the ballet because it was so remote but the nineteen twenties were pretty remote in the 1970's and 1980's too. I recall my mother was amazed by the poses of the female corps when the curtain rises because they looked exactly like the photographs in the Tatler of society ladies of the period.

 

I know that I read somewhere that Ashton took more care over staging revivals of other choreographers' works than he did of his own ballets. No doubt the fact that it was a work by Nijinska who had allowed him to watch her working meant that care continued to be lavished on it. It seemed to me at the last revival that everyone had come to think that a close approximation to what was required would do.Unfortunately that seems to be a theme running through the revival of several works that used to have care lavished on them when it came to casting and coaching.Ballets only live in performance and when it comes to reviving a piece that has long been out of the repertory lack of care in casting can be fatal. The audience will assume that the director has chosen the best available cast and that any inadequacies in performance are solely attributable to defects in the ballet itself rather than to compromise casting.An audience that knows a piece hasn't been performed for years is entitled to assume that it isn't in a company's living repertory for good reason.Serving up an inadequate revival simply serves to confirm the audience's suspicions that the neglected work has been neglected for good reason.

 

 

In expanding the range of repertory for the benefit of dancers,aspirant choreographers and the audience Kevin O'Hare could do something to address the current female choreographer debate from ballets within the repertory of the two Royal Ballet companies. What about a mixed bill of La Fete Etrange, The Prospect Before Us and Les Biches? Fete was a total disaster when Monica Mason tried to revive it.It lacked any sense of mystery and the casting was extremely odd. It was almost as if no one had any idea of the type of dancers required for the Boy and the Bride or perhaps the cast was simply made up of the dancers left after the other ballets had been cast.The cast for another revival would need to be hand picked this time to ensure that it worked and a pristine backcloth would be essential to ensure that the action of the ballet could be adequately lit.I think the company owes Andree Howard another revival of the work.Might La Belle Dame Sans Merci still be capable of revival?

 

But I fear that no one is really interested in ensuring that we continue to have access to any but a limited number of the great works of the past. Staging indifferent works by the likes of Wayne MacGregor is far more exciting and ensures you won't be labelled as a fuddy duddy.

Edited November 15, 2015 by FLOSS