Why have so few effective narrative works been produced in recent years?

[bridiem]

 

I can only speak for myself, but I now choose to embrace and cherish the present, FLOSS - or at least as much of it as I can.  I KNOW I'm not going to like everything but I have found the adoption of this attitude helps me to move forward in my interests and blessedly - to some degree - stops me from simply replaying a previously broken record, a recording from the past, which I now know can never again 'BE'.  

 

I thrill to watch the films - so many here that are listed as 'lost' - in the stunning archives that Robbins' legacy has fostered for me and our world.  I cherish the fact that it is still so free and open.  Now, however, I equally long and lust to walk out of those NYPL revolving doors and into the theatres that surround it - be they in NYC or Paris or London or anywhere else - and watch the development of dance - of dance life - as it is NOW.  

 

Just think, FLOSS, how lucky - in so many respects - WE ARE.  

 

Lovely post, Bruce - thank you. I do want to say however that I think it's perfectly possible to embrace and cherish the present whilst at the same time demanding respect of the past (where merited). And to refuse to embrace some particular things in or aspects of the present if they fail to do so. But yes - we are lucky to be able to live and appreciate NOW (just as others were lucky in the past, which was their NOW).

[Scheherezade]

 So what I wonder is whether there is some merits in using modern dancers' technique in the 19th century ballets in a way which doesn't jar with but also doesn't attempt to simply replicate the original performance style - interesting notion (at least to me).

 

Like minimalist styling in a period property?

[Lindsay]

Why not Scheherezade? If done with design skill that can be very successful.  If less skilfully done, then it jars.  And of course it is subjective - there will always be those who clutch pearls in horror at any perceived change to a 'sacred object'.  But in fact there wasn't even a single 19th century form of any of these ballets (as Ratmansky has clearly demonstrated) any more than there was ever only one 'right' way of performing them (same with music - some of Liszt's metronome markings for piano require extraordinary performances, impossible on a modern instrument and historical reviews suggest not achieved by many other than the man himself on period instruments).  

 

There is a range of possibilities, both within that 19th/early 20th century spectrum of performance practice and also departing from it in a way that builds upon elements of the original work and adds modern elements in a way that the choreographer/stager/director'dancer believes is sympathetic and interesting.  Sometimes such attempts are coherent, successful and please critics and audiences, sometimes they don't.

 

To use Floss's phrase, I don't believe that work designed for live performance should (or even can) be set in aspic.  And I don't think it is "maltreatment" to interpret works in a manner which wasn't conceivable at the time of their creation (look at modern dress opera or Shakespeare for example).  And I become a little weary of the same two complaints - "feet in ears/slowing pace at expense of musicality" being trotted out time after time to "prove" that everything about modern technique/stagings is ruining the classics.  And the same old examples (Guillem/Alina Somova's extensions and Makarova's Swan Lake Act 2 glacial pacing) are cited time after time. Not all modern dancers use their full extensions in the classics.  And not all modern dancers take them at funereal pace.  Cherry-picking the evidence is unhelpful and misleading.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Lindsay

[MAB]

There comes a time when audiences decide 'up with this I will not put'.  Every abysmal opera premiere is greeted with a barrage of booing at Covent Garden, for reasons I can't fathom this hasn't happened at the ballet yet.  Is there is a lack of discernment involved?  You'd have to pay me before I'd watch a performance by Alina Somova but there is more involved in casting in Russia than most people know and anyway that is outside the scope of this forum.

 

I don't agree with everything FLOSS writes as I am a modern dance enthusiast and the principal reason I object to ballet companies dancing modern works is that modern dancers could find themselves redundant if the trend continues, but the fact remains that there is more creative activity at a high level in contemporary than there is in ballet.  Choreographers that are enthusiastic about classical technique are becoming a rarity and I have a lot of sympathy with those ballet-goers that would prefer revisiting the back catalogue to watching lukewarm creations that no one will remember in a couple of years time.  I'm aware we live in a throwaway society but great art shouldn't be discarded, if you believe some ballets are worth retaining perhaps some respect should be shown to how they are performed.

 

The bottom line is we have a choice and I find I'm increasingly voting with my feet.

 

edited one word.

Edited November 30, 2016 by MAB

[Scheherezade]

Why not Scheherezade? If done with design skill that can be very successful.  If less skilfully done, then it jars.  And of course it is subjective - there will always be those who clutch pearls in horror at any perceived change to a 'sacred object'.  But in fact there wasn't even a single 19th century form of any of these ballets (as Ratmansky has clearly demonstrated) any more than there was ever only one 'right' way of performing them (same with music - some of Liszt's metronome markings for piano require extraordinary performances, impossible on a modern instrument and historical reviews suggest not achieved by many other than the man himself on period instruments).  

 

There is a range of possibilities, both within that 19th/early 20th century spectrum of performance practice and also departing from it in a way that builds upon elements of the original work and adds modern elements in a way that the choreographer/stager/director'dancer believes is sympathetic and interesting.  Sometimes such attempts are coherent, successful and please critics and audiences, sometimes they don't.

 

To use Floss's phrase, I don't believe that work designed for live performance should (or even can) be set in aspic.  And I don't think it is "maltreatment" to interpret works in a manner which wasn't conceivable at the time of their creation (look at modern dress opera or Shakespeare for example).  And I become a little weary of the same two complaints - "feet in ears/slowing pace at expense of musicality" being trotted out time after time to "prove" that everything about modern technique/stagings is ruining the classics.  And the same old examples (Guillem/Alina Somova's extensions and Makarova's Swan Lake Act 2 glacial pacing) are cited time after time. Not all modern dancers use their full extensions in the classics.  And not all modern dancers take them at funereal pace.  Cherry-picking the evidence is unhelpful and misleading.

I'm sorry you took my comment as a criticism, Lindsay. I love minimalist styling in a period property so it was actually an endorsement.

[Lindsay]

fairy nuff.  I didn't take it as a criticism in fact, but was just clarifying my view.

[Lindsay]

But the majority of paying audiences are not so deciding MAB.  Even fairly shoddy touring productions of Swan Lake tend to sell well, and the ROH is now fuller for the classics than I remember it being before the house closed for renovation (or even in the first couple of years after it re-opened).  

 

I totally agree with you that I think the most exciting dance creations are being made away from ballet companies and I rather dislike a lot of the "classical-lite" stuff that gets expensively commissioned.  But I don't conclude, as an inevitable corollary of that, that standards of classical dancing are in terminal decline.

[Scheherezade]

There comes a time when audiences decide 'up with this I will not put'.  Every abysmal opera premiere is greeted with a barrage of booing at Covent Garden, for reasons I can't fathom this hasn't happened at the ballet yet.  Is there is a lack of discernment involved? 

I think it's because booing at the opera is almost entirely directed at the staging and not the performance, hence the cries for concert performances rather than juvenile, patronising productions designed to massage the director's ego and the view (as exemplified by Kaspar Holten's disparaging aside that if the audience don't like it they will have to be taught) that they know best.

[MAB]

Seeing as Mr Holten is taking 'gardening' leave perhaps the audience has won that spat.  Liked Kroll Roger though.

[Lindsay]

I didn't particularly enjoy lots of Kaspar Holten's productions (not nearly as 'radical' as he seemed to think they were) but, to be fair to him, he later said that he hadn't meant to say "teach" - he had meant to say he wanted to "challenge" audiences.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Lindsay

[Fonty]

Wow, some really interesting comments on here.  The trouble is, the posts are so long, I am having trouble picking out the relevant bits that I want to respond to!

 

First of all, I enjoyed Bruce Wall's posting.  I agree that there is much to be excited by at present, and I look forward to the future. 

 

Secondly, while I normally agree with most of what Floss is saying, I am a bit puzzled by the following: "It is difficult for a company with an extensive historical repertory. It has to decide whether to update and rework them at regular intervals  while proclaiming that they are entirely the work of the original choreographer, the route taken by Russian companies, or, it can try to hand the tradition on. This was the route generally taken by the Royal Ballet in its first fifty years or so.  It is difficult to pinpoint precisely when it all started to unravel. Perhaps it was Dowell's need to accommodate Guillem's wish to do everything her way based on her view that she was far more important than a mere choreographer which was when the rot set in."

 

Now, I was a great fan of Guillem. I appreciate that she wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I saw her in all the classics, and she made me see them with fresh eyes.  I think she was one of the best Giselles I ever saw, and I loved her in Swan Lake.  Yes,  she pushed those extensions up to the rafters, but on her they felt natural.  I never saw Makarova, but the little clip of her in SW that Bruce posted on a new thread looked ravishing, and maybe if I had seen her live, I would not have noticed the slow tempo, but would have revelled in the performance.

 

Both Makarova and Guillem are recognised as being amongst the greatest dancers of their generation  I don't know enough about the former to make any comment about her, but Guillem was unique, a one off.  I think the problem partly came about when those that followed her attempted to copy her. They latched on to certain aspects of her technique, and attempted to imitate her style, but they didn't possess her artistry and talent.  

[Two Pigeons]

I always say that during my time as a balletomane I have seen stars who I am not so sure were ballerinas, Darcey being a good example, Katherine Healey another and ballerinas who weren't exactly stars, Merle Park, Viviana Durante and Galina Samsova being examples here.

 

I have only ever seen three dancers who, to my mind, qualify in both categories. They were Fonteyn, Makarova and Guillem. Even at the time the last two had their detractors and there is a great tenancy these days amongst people who never saw her live to criticise Fonteyn as over praised. Either way, from my experience I would say that if you saw any or all of these ladies perform you knew you were seeing someone very special.

 

There are a few more dancers who may well have fallen into this category but either I saw them when they were past their peak or just not enough in the right roles to make a judgment. I would place Lynn Seymour in the first category and Tamara Rojo in the second. If someone is to join my list of stars and ballerinas at the same time it would be Antoinette Sibley whom I saw when she returned after her initial retirement and maybe Nina Anianashvili whom I still rate as the greatest individual performance of a great musical and classical ballerina when I saw her in Raymonda.

 

My live ballet going is pretty limited these days but one person I have great hopes for is Celine Gittens. Were she with the RB I am certain she would be getting a lot of attention and appreciation.

 

This is all a bit of a rambling way of saying that I have been very fortunate to see ballerinas who encompass both schools of thought, high extensions and slow musicality as well as more conventional extensions but faster dancing and consideration for the music with equal appreciation for both types. What I really regret now is the idea that the former is now regarded as the accepted and desirable norm with the earlier approach to dancing being dated and somehow inferior. It isn't and I agree with the earlier posts which say how lucky we are to have seen those great artists of the past because they were artists.

[assoluta]

Now, I was a great fan of Guillem. I appreciate that she wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I saw her in all the classics, and she made me see them with fresh eyes.  I think she was one of the best Giselles I ever saw, and I loved her in Swan Lake.  Yes,  she pushed those extensions up to the rafters, but on her they felt natural.  I never saw Makarova, but the little clip of her in SW that Bruce posted on a new thread looked ravishing, and maybe if I had seen her live, I would not have noticed the slow tempo, but would have revelled in the performance.

 

Both Makarova and Guillem are recognised as being amongst the greatest dancers of their generation  I don't know enough about the former to make any comment about her, but Guillem was unique, a one off.  I think the problem partly came about when those that followed her attempted to copy her. They latched on to certain aspects of her technique, and attempted to imitate her style, but they didn't possess her artistry and talent.  

 

Guillem was unique, no doubt about it, and very much misunderstood, then and now. Praising her above any reasonable limits became a habit, almost a cult, in some balletomaniac circles which is even more intriguing if one notices that the highest praise she garners for things she did wrong (like her Raymonda variation).

[Bruce Wall]

A very interesting article akin to this thread's subject matter in Canada's Globe and Mail.  

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/theatre-and-performance/to-stay-relevant-the-national-ballet-of-canada-must-eschew-tradition-and-challengeaudiences/article32809064/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

 

It raises some interesting ideas about narrative dance challenges in the 21st Century.  Would love to hear your response FLOSS.  

Edited December 4, 2016 by Bruce Wall

[Ian Macmillan]

New stuff?  Get to today's Links for a Verdi Requiem and a nearly-ready Cleopatra.

[MAB]

I've a ticket for the Verdi Requiem ballet for next month, interesting review.  As ever, many thanks to those that compile them

[FLOSS]

Bruce, I am not sure that the article in the Globe takes this discussion very far. It is a complaint about the National Ballet of Canada's repertory for the 2016-17 season which the author seeks to support with a series of assertions about the state of ballet in the 1960's which don't bear close inspection. The author seems woefully ignorant about the state of ballet in the 1960's and  the reasons for its popularity among the New York intellectual elite. The one thing it is not, is an analysis of the causes of ballet's current malaise. Indeed it seems to me that the author has mistaken the symptoms of that malaise for its.causes.

 

I think that author fails to understand that the popularity of ballet in North America in the 1960's was the culmination of the best part of fifty years hard work by a wide range of dancers and choreographers and quite a bit of television exposure in the 1950's. Just as Mr B, represents more than a  century's investment in ballet by the Tsarist regime. Mr B's success as a choreographer has considerably more to do with his extensive knowledge of the Petipa classics and his ability to rework their elements than his austere approach to ballet While the popularity of ballet in North America from the 1940's to the 1960's was, in large part, the product of the pioneering touring work of Diaghilev's Ballets Russes, and its diaspora such as the Ballets Russes de Monte Carlo and Ballet Caravan rather than Mr B's presence in New York. It was the range of outstanding choreographers creating important ballets on both sides of the Atlantic and the dancers appearing in them that established and then maintained ballet's importance as an art form and made people want to be part of it either directly or indirectly. Maria Tallchief said that it was seeing Freddie Franklin dance that kindled her interested in ballet and made her want to train to be a dancer.It is foolish to ignore the part that dancers like Markova,the Tallchiefs, Le Clerc,Verdy.Fonteyn, Sibley, Seymour,Nureyev, Dowell, and the works of choreographers like Ashton. Tudor and Robbins played in making and keeping the world of dance a vibrant artistic force until the beginning of the 1980's, or indeed, the part played by the media. Perhaps we should also note that interest seemed to decline after the deaths of Mr B, Ashton, Robbins and Tudor and Markarova's and Baryshnikov's retirement from the ballet stage. 

 

The writer seems to have created a Mr B in her own image and likeness. A Mr B who was austerity itself,a man who eschewed extravagant stage design and would never have been caught staging ballets based on nineteenth century Petipa classics or fairy stories or works which appeal to a family audience. This Mr B would certainly never have spent $40,000 on tree for a production of the Nutcracker and then explained the extravagance to the Board by saying that "The tree is the ballet". He would have been far too principled to have contemplated staging a work like Nutcracker to keep a company afloat financially, let alone to have done so.

 

It is tempting to explain the failure of ballet to maintain its hold on the social and intellectual elite and the public at large in terms of current repertory choices. It is easy to write in terms which suggest that the solution lies in a modern "relevant" repertory, whatever that is  This suggests that there are loads of exceptionally talented choreographers waiting for the call to save the art form and that it is the blindness and timidity of artistic directors which prevents the restoration of ballet to its proper place among the theatrical arts as an art which no one can afford to be ignorant about. I don't think that the answer to the problem is simply to rush after the self proclaimed choreographic genius who creates "challenging", "relevant" works. Nothing dates more quickly than the "relevant" and the "challenging".Nothing is worse than an earnest ballet with a limited dance vocabulary.which only succeeds in boring a significant part of the audience. 

 

There is no instant answer to the problem. We seem to have lost sight of the intellectual strength that the triumvirate which created the Sleeping Beauty possessed or that the Diaghilev ballet was in many ways a development of the intellectual "World of Art" circle which was involved in a wide range of artistic activity in St Petersburg. We forget that it was Diaghilev's ability to obtain financial support from the social elites across Europe which enabled him to continue after his initial state supported season and his contacts with the avant garde in France which made so much of the work created in the twenties possible.

 

 

What is needed is ballets which capture the imagination because of the way in which the choreographer manages to make the music and the choreographed movement converge for me it is Mark Morris rather than Ratmansky who succeeds in doing this most often. If the choreographer can achieve this then it does not matter whether the work in question is a narrative or an abstract ballet.What is important is that it should not be dull and earnest.The problem with "relevance" is that it dates so quickly. I don't think that ballet's current problems are caused by the nineteenth century repertory as such, or by ballets in which there are fairies.It is the lack of "real" choreographers who are able to grab an audience;s attention and hold on to it whatever type of work they choose to make.

 

It is possible that people with real choreographic gifts, as opposed to ballet masters able to stage ballets, have always been in short supply. But if that is so, how do you explain the ability of both Diaghilev and Rambert to recognise potential choreographic talent, nurture and develop it? They each seem to have identified and developed more major talents than any organisation seems to have managed.  I do wonder whether the pursuit of dancers with perfect ballet bodies is making it even more difficult to find "real " choreographers than it was in the past.The fact that most companies seem to be in thrall to the bean counters and ADs can't afford too many failures does not help foster creativity. Perhaps the real question should be whether people with the right set of skills and a sufficiently wide range of artistic and cultural interests are appointed as AD's ?Does an AD have to be a former dancer? In pre-Revolutionary St Petersburg the Director of the Imperial Theatres was not a dancer. Diaghilev was not a dancer and Rambert's involvement in classical academic dance was far from conventional. So no answers from me merely more questions.

Edited December 8, 2016 by FLOSS

[assoluta]

What is needed is ballets which capture the imagination because of the way in which the choreographer manages to make the music and the choreographed movement converge for me it is Mark Morris rather than Ratmansky who succeeds in doing this most often. If the choreographer can achieve this then it does not matter whether the work in question is a narrative or an abstract ballet.What is important is that it should not be dull and earnest.The problem with "relevance" is that it dates so quickly. I don't think that ballet's current problems are caused by the nineteenth century repertory as such, or by ballets in which there are fairies.It is the lack of "real" choreographers who are able to grab an audience;s attention and hold on to it whatever type of work they choose to make.

 

You make a number of really important points. Allow me to comment on just one. I still believe that it matters "whether the work in question is a narrative or an abstract ballet", it matters certainly to the audience, it matters also to the artists. I find your comparison between Morris and, say, Ratmansky, very well chosen, the strength of the former is musicality of his choreography and respect for his musical sources whereas Ratmansky, who does not seem to possess similar degree of understanding of musical sources, does not seem interested in getting with his choreography into the fibre of music either.

 

In your long thoughtful exposé you do not mention one thing I would mention as the root cause of weakness of much of modern choreography: inability of acclaimed modern choreographers to compose choreographic text. Majority of works I see today, many receiving far more acclaim than they deserve, seems to be based on very few, sometimes just one or two, choreographic ideas, the rest is just what I would term desperate attempts to fill void.  Imagine a serious composer who is supposed to produce an evening of music, while everything he is capable of is a few tunes, a few interesting chords, with no idea how to compose a long work out of them that would sustain interest for more than a few moments, that would possess structure and clarity. So, he is either resorting to near mechanical repetitiveness or long periods where various choreographic elements, clichés of modern vocabulary, seem to be almost randomly piled up to fill time and space. Haven't you noticed that one of the key differences between the balletic works of the past and present, is that the modern pieces one can begin and stop watching at any time with little or no detriment? I certainly attended a number of such works staged by major companies that, it was clear to me, they grew up from one or two ideas and the rest was just attempts to fill void.

Edited December 8, 2016 by assoluta

[MAB]

.......... whereas Ratmansky, who does not seem to possess similar degree of understanding of musical sources, does not seem interested in getting with his choreography into the fibre of music either.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I find that a rather obtuse observation, would you care to elaborate using clear examples?

[alison]

Does an AD have to be a former dancer?

 

Possibly not.  That's a variation on a question I've asked in the past: whether an AD needs to be a former *principal* dancer.  I don't think so.

[Colman]

Reading Ashton's biography recently, it occurred to me that he'd be driven out of a modern company by critics online and in the media before he ever produced a major work.

[assoluta]

A post scriptum worthy of FLOSS' long posting: I just returned from the French premiere of Jean-Guillaume Barts's staging of La belle au bois dormant at Opéra Massy and I am thrilled. I would sign under every word of Bart's credo that I am copying from the printed program:

 

Le risque aujourd’hui (et je le constate de plus en plus régulièrement), c’est de se tourner vers une danse purement virtuose, athlétique, spectaculaire qui flirte avec l’acrobatie. Et je refuse catégoriquement de suivre cette mode, qui fait de l’art du Ballet une discipline hybride. Ce phénomène actuel est pourtant aux antipodes des doctrines instaurées par le roi Soleil et par Jean-Georges Noverre, grand réformateur du 18 e siècle et père du « ballet d’action ».

Car pour moi, un ballet est avant tout une histoire dansée, et non un prétexte à danser et/ou à faire briller les danseurs. Le geste classique, tels des vers ou des notes de musique, possède sa propre dynamique, sa propre expressivité et a vocation à véhiculer un message.

 

I hope I don't need to translate it. It speaks for itself. This production I liked more than any attempt at reconstructing "authentic" Petipa. More than Noureev's stilted Le lac des cygnes at Opéra Bastille that I saw on two previous nights. Bart attempted instead to recreate the essence of what ballet once was, and the spectacle was worthy of being shown in front of Louis XVI at one of his chateaux. This is what I call a "relevant" work. This is not the place to report on actual performances so I stop here, but I wish we can see Yakobson Ballet of St.-Petersburg in London with this new, so fresh, so charmante, rendering of the old classic.

[Sim]

I agree with Bart's sentiments. How lovely that a choreographer is still trying to make pure, classical ballet, and how appropriate that he is French!

[Jan McNulty]

For those like me whose French may not be up to the mark here is what Google translate came up with:

 

"The risk today (and I see it more and more regularly) is to turn to a purely virtuoso, athletic, spectacular dance flirting with acrobatics. And I categorically refuse to follow this fashion, which makes the art of the Ballet a hybrid discipline. This current phenomenon is, however, at odds with the doctrines established by the Sun King and by Jean-Georges Noverre, a great reformer of the 18th century and father of the "ballet d'action".

For me, a ballet is above all a danced story, not a pretext to dance and / or make the dancers shine. The classic gesture, such as verses or musical notes, has its own dynamic, expressiveness and vocation to convey a message."

 

Wonderful sentiment!

[Saodan]

Interesting comments by Alessandra Ferri during the Nutcracker live stream. 

 

She said that Woolf Works is the only “completely modern” “narrative” ballet, but didn’t elaborate much if memory serves. Fair enough, she may have been in promotion mode and is perhaps a little biased as it was created on her, but does she have a point here?

 

As touched on by others, most recent narrative offerings seem to be working within established conventions and trying to invoke a particular feeling or aesthetic that we are familiar with. Maybe this is why some recent works have failed to stand on their own. I’m thinking of critics on this site who saw parts of Scarlett’s Frankenstein as knockoff MacMillan. Those works that have found their own choreographic vocabulary and aesthetic, like Woolf Works and Akram Khan’s Giselle, have faired much better, with critics at least. 

 

I am speaking as someone who has yet to see Woolf Works and did not particularly enjoy Khan’s Giselle, so perhaps should not be making this argument! That said, it seems that greater innovation choreographically, aesthetically, and musically is likely to produce better results than attempts to create new works in the style of old. When I think about classical or romantic ballet broadly, or specific choreographers like MacMillian and Ashton, I have a clear idea of their artistic style. The same is true of MacGregor. But can it be said that Scarlett and Wheeldon have their own distinct artistic style? I defer to those with greater experience and knowledge than me…

[Two Pigeons]

You have done far better than me Saodan in that you remember what she said. My memory of that bit was the dawning panic on the faces of both Darcey and Gethin Jones as they wondered how they were going to stop her talking.

[Ian Macmillan]

None of us can see everything and, that being so, perhaps sweeping statements are best avoided, even by luminaries such as Ms Ferri, and even if it were clear just what she may have meant by 'completely modern.'  I would offer much of the narrative work of Cathy Marston for her consideration, and I am sure there are many others equally worthy.

[bridiem]

I loved Woolf Works but I didn't agree with Alessandra Ferri that at the end of it you knew everything about Virginia Woolf. I'd say it was more impressionistic than actually narrative. But very effective as such.

[Fiz]

I think I am going to book seats for the cinema when this is being transmitted.

[alison]

For those like me whose French may not be up to the mark here is what Google translate came up with:

 

"The risk today (and I see it more and more regularly) is to turn to a purely virtuoso, athletic, spectacular dance flirting with acrobatics. And I categorically refuse to follow this fashion, which makes the art of the Ballet a hybrid discipline. This current phenomenon is, however, at odds with the doctrines established by the Sun King and by Jean-Georges Noverre, a great reformer of the 18th century and father of the "ballet d'action".

For me, a ballet is above all a danced story, not a pretext to dance and / or make the dancers shine. The classic gesture, such as verses or musical notes, has its own dynamic, expressiveness and vocation to convey a message."

 

Wonderful sentiment!

Wonderful sentiment, albeit inaccurately translated, but what else can you expect from a computer program?

[Fonty]

 

Those works that have found their own choreographic vocabulary and aesthetic, like Woolf Works and Akram Khan’s Giselle, have faired much better, with critics at least. 

 

I am speaking as someone who has yet to see Woolf Works and did not particularly enjoy Khan’s Giselle, so perhaps should not be making this argument! That said, it seems that greater innovation choreographically, aesthetically, and musically is likely to produce better results than attempts to create new works in the style of old. When I think about classical or romantic ballet broadly, or specific choreographers like MacMillian and Ashton, I have a clear idea of their artistic style. The same is true of MacGregor. But can it be said that Scarlett and Wheeldon have their own distinct artistic style? I defer to those with greater experience and knowledge than me…

 

As a matter of interest, where does Matthew Bourne fit in?  He is hugely popular with audiences, and I assume the critics like him as well. I think his takes on the classics are wonderful, but I don't have a clear idea of his artistic style in terms of the movement.  

[Jan McNulty]

As a matter of interest, where does Matthew Bourne fit in?  He is hugely popular with audiences, and I assume the critics like him as well. I think his takes on the classics are wonderful, but I don't have a clear idea of his artistic style in terms of the movement.  

 

 

I've never heard Matthew Bourne describe his productions as ballets.  

[alison]

He doesn't.  If anything, he calls them dansicals.