The Royal Ballet: La Bayadère, London, November 2018

[alison]

Thank you, capybara.  I had hoped so, but nobody had mentioned it.

[Colman]

8 hours ago, loveclassics said:

In all this discussion I'm surprised no one has mentioned the cultural appropriation shown in most pantomimes.  Aladdin and Ali Baba for example.

 

PantoCoForum is behind you. Probably a better place to find that discussion. 

 

I’m fascinated at how uncomfortable and defensive discussing this makes some of you.

[zxDaveM]

19 minutes ago, Colman said:

 

PantoCoForum is behind you.

 

oh no it isn't!

 

(couldn't resist!)

[Fonty]

9 hours ago, capybara said:

 

Yes - a really lovely gesture on the part of BCF's very own BBB to ensure that every member of the female corps received a white rose.

 

What a lovely gesture. 🙂

 

Did the corps get their own curtain call?  I can't remember. 

[Scheherezade]

13 hours ago, Darlex said:

 

Wasn't there someone who objected to Sleeping Beauty because the prince wakes her up with a kiss while she is asleep? Oh my oh my! 

 

 

They did indeed, on the basis that he shouldn't have done it without first obtaining her unequivocal permission, although how he was supposed to do that since her sleep could not be broken until she was kissed somehow escapes me.

 

13 hours ago, tabitha said:

 

And what if ballet adopts the current theatre rule that only actors of the correct racial minority  heritage can play a part? That would mean only dancers of ‘oriental’ heritage could dance in La Bayadare. 

 

 

 

And yet Hamilton uses black, Latino and Asian actors to (successfully) portray the white founding fathers using rap and hip hop, neither of which could be said to represent either ethnic origins of the founding fathers or the time in which the musical was set.

[Timmie]

7 minutes ago, Scheherezade said:

They did indeed, on the basis that he shouldn't have done it without first obtaining her unequivocal permission, although how he was supposed to do that since her sleep could not be broken until she was kissed somehow escapes me.

 

I think that the Lilac Fairy is probably her Legal Guardian and is able to give permission as the kiss is for medical reasons.

[Scheherezade]

11 minutes ago, Timmie said:

 

I think that the Lilac Fairy is probably her Legal Guardian and is able to give permission as the kiss is for medical reasons.

 

Try telling that to the offence-taking PC brigade!

[assoluta]

16 minutes ago, Scheherezade said:

They did indeed, on the basis that he shouldn't have done it without first obtaining her unequivocal permission, ...

 

...in the presence of a lawyer and a notary, in order to avoid a charge 25 years later that waking up Aurora was predatory, a sexual harassment, and abuse of power.

[Nogoat]

56 minutes ago, assoluta said:

 

...in the presence of a lawyer and a notary, in order to avoid a charge 25 years later that waking up Aurora was predatory, a sexual harassment, and abuse of power.

 

Here's a shoo-in; this notary has experience of dealing with prenuptial shenanigans...

 

[JohnS]

On 09/11/2018 at 09:36, JohnS said:

If the ROH accepts that the scrim detracts from the performance for cinema audiences, what's the rationale for treating theatre audiences differently?  ...  I've posted a question on the ROH's news website.  

 

To date my post referred to above on 'Your Reaction: What did you think of La Bayadere?' remains unpublished.  I have been in touch a couple of times to ask what's happening, using the ROH's website contact form and am hoping to receive a reply.  I am keen to see what the response is and, as people were asking some time back, will post any update I receive.  

Given people's comments about the scrim for the new Triple Bill, it seems important to chase an answer as regards the scrim for La Bayadere.  I'll look forward to Friday's Triple Bill - I don't think the scrim will affect my view but am concerned that attention seems to be focused on how the production looks from Orchestra Stalls, Grand Tier etc with little consideration for other seats.

[Sunrise]

I'm finding some of the latest posts here remarkably intolerant and mean spirited.

 

Why can't a minority of posters voice their perfectly valid opinions about their discomfort about Bayadere (as I said before, this discussion can be made alongside a general appreciation for the dancers, choreography, Shades, etc.) without others throwing barely veiled insults and going off on a tangent about Fille, panto, Hamilton and making unfounded accusations of being part of the PC brigade and taking offence to everything. And especially since the origin of the discussion didn't start in a vacuum, it started with personal experience.

 

For the record I made the same criticism when the Bolshoi last brought Bayadere to London but I'm not intransigent and I've softened my view since then.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Sunrise

[Sunrise]

I just have a feeling that minority views here are being ganged up on, especially when that view is "I don't like X". I get that this is a ballet fan site - obviously I love ballet too and I wasn't going to win any likes by going on a Bayadere thread and saying I don't like Bayadere. But it makes me sad that I can't express that opinion without being made fun of.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Sunrise

[Colman]

34 minutes ago, Sunrise said:

making unfounded accusations of being part of the PC brigade and taking offence to everything

 

When you’re used to power, other people asserting theirs feels like oppression. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[loveclassics]

26 minutes ago, Sunrise said:

I just have a feeling that minority views here are being ganged up on, especially when that view is "I don't like X". I get that this is a ballet fan site - obviously I love ballet too and I wasn't going to win any likes by going on a Bayadere thread and saying I don't like Bayadere. But it makes me sad that I can't express that opinion without being made fun of.

 

I don't get this.  I was just poking a little light-hearted fun at the way old fairy tales are being taken so seriously these days.  I am not in favour of the way parts of our cultural history are now being re-interpreted in the light of modern thinking.  It's a bit like the angry suffragette who took a knife to the Rokeby Venus.  I understand her motive but in the long run do such protests achieve anything?

 

Linda

[toursenlair]

I would really like it if terms like "PC brigade" and "I was offended brigade" and "virtue signalling" were all retired. As someone has said, replace "politically correct" with "respectful and sensitive" and it sheds a whole new light on the matter. What do people who fling about accusations of "PC" really want? For us to go back to a time when you could make racist, sexist, homophobic etc. remarks, works of art, stereotypes, etc. and get away with it? I'm sure there is a long history of people saying that those who object to racism, sexism, homophobia, are "just a small minority" or not even the people who are affected but some others who are "virtue signalling" on their behalf.This is a great way to discredit those who do have well-founded objections. How can I, a white middle-aged privileged ballet goer who has never suffered from racism in my life, have the right to tell someone who has so suffered, what they should feel about La Bayadere, and even more how dare I say "If you don't like it, don't go" as a dismissal of valid objections?

[penelopesimpson]

58 minutes ago, toursenlair said:

I would really like it if terms like "PC brigade" and "I was offended brigade" and "virtue signalling" were all retired. As someone has said, replace "politically correct" with "respectful and sensitive" and it sheds a whole new light on the matter. What do people who fling about accusations of "PC" really want? For us to go back to a time when you could make racist, sexist, homophobic etc. remarks, works of art, stereotypes, etc. and get away with it? I'm sure there is a long history of people saying that those who object to racism, sexism, homophobia, are "just a small minority" or not even the people who are affected but some others who are "virtue signalling" on their behalf.This is a great way to discredit those who do have well-founded objections. How can I, a white middle-aged privileged ballet goer who has never suffered from racism in my life, have the right to tell someone who has so suffered, what they should feel about La Bayadere, and even more how dare I say "If you don't like it, don't go" as a dismissal of valid objections?

So, let me get this straight.  You now propose to censor even the language of dissent?

 

Respectful and sensitive may mean politically correct to you, to me it means nothing of the kind.  Resepectful and sensitive implies a tolerance towards attitudes which may differ from your own.  Politically correct is a term used to describe individuals, organisations or groups who dictate what others may see/feel/hear/experience.  They are not the same at all.  Virtue signalling is merely a shorthand way of explaining something that takes a very long time to explain.

 

We have gone from discussing a light-hearted piece of froth expressed in dance to a danger of 'going back to a time when you could make racist, sexist, homophobic remarks.'  Really?  How do you get there?  How much tolerance are you showing towards the views of those of us who do not find La Bayadere racist?  Must we accept the view of the few who say they are offended, although I have yet to actually find out what it is that is offensive.  I often wonder when faced with scenarios like this how those who really are the victims of racist abuse feel when they come across this sort of thing.

 

You then go on to make a further leap, insinuating that those who do not agree with the objections which you describe as 'well-founded' do not have the right to argue against such allegations.  Ergo: if you don't find men smoking dope in baggy trousers and tights and women in midriffs and veils racist, then, apparently you have no right to have an opinion.

 

Must we let all our culture (and this particular ballet isn't even home grown) be picked to pieces and,  ultimately, removed from the repertoire because some take offense?  I am white and middle-aged and proud of it, having worked hard all my life, not only to provide for my family but also to be as good a human being as I know how, despite my fallibility.  I think I understand racism even without protesting that half my friends are mixed race and the other homosexual.  Racism is simply another, particularly unkind form of cruelty and I have always opposed unkindness in any form.  Our country is famed for its tolerance and I think we've made a pretty good shake of being multi-racial, even if there is still a long way to go.  This cause is not helped when people start to attack those things which many of us hold dear.  The Racism card is so often the last gasp of the desperate and to have it so casually attached to a rather silly ballet that for the life of me I cannot understand how it offends, is offensive in itself.

 

This is an excellent forum for debate.  I may oppose a  point of view but would happily go to the barricades to defend the right of those who make a point with which I profoundly disagree.  It doesn't make me angry, just despairing that anybody could propose that we even apply censorship to our vocabulary. 

[tabitha]

9 hours ago, Scheherezade said:

 

And yet Hamilton uses black, Latino and Asian actors to (successfully) portray the white founding fathers using rap and hip hop, neither of which could be said to represent either ethnic origins of the founding fathers or the time in which the musical was set.

 

I’m not familiar with Hamilton but white characters aren’t classed as a racial minority so can be played by anyone of any heritage - it’s called “colour-blind casting” but it only applies to black and minority ethnic (BAME) actors being cast in traditionally white character roles, whereas BAME characters have to be played by a BAME actor.

e.g. recently a west-end musical star banned from singing a song from ‘Dream Girls’ at the Albert Hall because she is white and not of African American heritage

[zxDaveM]

12 minutes ago, penelopesimpson said:

It doesn't make me angry, just despairing that anybody could propose that we even apply censorship to our vocabulary. 

 

...or being respectful and sensitive, as most other people would call it

[Sunrise]

26 minutes ago, penelopesimpson said:

You now propose to censor even the language of dissent?

 

I think terms like PC brigade are generally used to belittle other people and opinions. I think the terms and conditions of this forum are generally to try to be nice to each other even while disagreeing.

[Sunrise]

1 hour ago, penelopesimpson said:

Must we let all our culture (and this particular ballet isn't even home grown) be picked to pieces and,  ultimately, removed from the repertoire because some take offense?

 

Aren't all ballets picked to pieces here?

 

1 hour ago, penelopesimpson said:

Must we accept the view of the few who say they are offended, although I have yet to actually find out what it is that is offensive.

  

Of course not. But rereading the last couple pages of posts, the tone suggests that some of those who are "in favour" of Bayadere are more upset about this discussion than those who are "against".

 

1 hour ago, penelopesimpson said:

I often wonder when faced with scenarios like this how those who really are the victims of racist abuse feel when they come across this sort of thing.

 

You could perhaps consider that some of us who have experienced racist abuse can also find frothy culturally insensitive ballets a bit uncomfortable as well as object to being referred to as the PC brigade. I appreciated toursenlair's post.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Sunrise

[Saodan]

For what it’s worth Sunrise, I completely agree with you.

La Bayadere clearly contains Orientalist attitudes in its approach to, and depiction of, Indian culture, religion, and history. How could it not? It was made in the 19th century when such attitudes were the norm. To use the opium example: both Albrecht and Florimund are able to see visions of their loved ones without opium, so why does Solor need it? It's use in La Bayadere fits the 19th century use of Oriental settings as an excuse for over-the-top, debauched, or wanton behaviour that could not, at the time, be depicted in ballets using romanticised European settings. Can you imagine Giselle picking up a knife and trying to stab Bathilde rather than just dying like a good peasant? This is how Orientalism worked, a whole culture reduced to an excuse for exotic titillation. 

 

None of this, however, prevented me from enjoying a performance which I imagine will be one of the best performances of anything I will ever see. An astonishing Muntagirov, Osipova bringing a little bit of Giselle to Nikiya, that balance from Nuñez, Sambé making the final act worth waiting around for, and an extraordinarily moving Shades scene from a corps de ballet on top form. With the Royal Ballet giving performances of this quality, I hope La Bayadere returns soon, despite its problems. 

 

I don’t understand why some seem unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge the problems as well as celebrate the performances. It seems that some perceive a threat that needs defending against. I have seen no threats. No-one calling for La Bayadere to be removed from the rep, no-one calling for major changes, no accusations, no censor. All I have seen is an attempt to start a discussion about how we, in the 21st century, should respond to a 19th century work enshrining a deeply problematic 19th century worldview. I don’t think that denial, dismissal, and derision is the answer. 

[FrankH]

I am very sorry to post again on this thread about anything else but the excellence of the RB dancers. But from my own personal experiences of life, I feel I have something to add.

 

I have already posted that I think most of the objections to La Bayadere are an example of "PC gone mad", so I hope no one thinks I am a member of the "PC Brigade". Unless you define that as widely, as I'm afraid the Sun, Mail, Express, and certain other popular newspapers do, so that it means anything which isn't liked by their owners, editors and journalists. If such as Quentin Letts, Nick Ferrari, Rod Liddle, Paul Dacre etc. were to regard me as "PC" (if of course they actually cared about what an ordinary person such as myself thinks), I would regard it as an honour. (I am actually so un-PC that a friend described me as more right-wing than Margaret Thatcher. And if you knew some of my views you might agree!)

 

This may indeed be the most tolerant country in the world. But that doesn't mean that intolerance doesn't exist. Surveys have repeatedly shown that a significant minority, usually around 10% or so, of Britons are strongly prejudiced against people of other races, are in fact "white supremacists". I myself have experienced the effect of this. Quite a few times.

 

I regard myself as fully British, indeed more specifically English. But my parents were Chinese, and I was actually born there. We came to this country in 1948, when I was two, my parents fully expecting to return to China after a few years (my father was a student of English Language and Literature). Unfortunately, only a few months after we arrived, the Communists won the civil war. My father thought, with very good reason, that it would be unsafe for him to return. So we became in effect "Asylum Seekers", that dangerous type of human whom Katie Hopkins, former columnist of both the Sun and the Mail, delightfully described as "cockroaches".

 

My parents were always grateful that this country gave them shelter, and remained anglophiles all their lives. As for myself, my sister and brother, we have known no other home.

 

I could provide quite a list of the sort of racial abuse - some overt, some subtle - that I, and other members of my family have received over the years, but I won't, as it would be tedious. I'll just mention one. In one of the schools I attended as a child, in the 1950s, one staff member never referred to me by my name. Instead he called me, and addressed me to my face as "Ugly". Many times.

 

He wouldn't have been able to get away with that today. And the very tendencies which have made such behaviour unacceptable, are the ones which would now often be derided as "PC". Now of course PC has gone too far in quite a few instances (as with criticism of La Bayadere), but not a few of the most ridiculous examples reported by the Sun/Mail/Express have been shown to be either distortions, or downright lies. The journalists may not have made them up themselves, but they were only too willing to believe those who did. And of course there have been genuine cases of absurdities, usually associated with student politics. The trouble is that these incidents, real or not, have allowed racism, sexism etc. to reappear in the guise of defence of "free speech". Well, I defend free speech. Katie Hopkins, Donald Trump, Jacob Rees-Mogg (whose father once sent me a very nice letter), etc. have every right to say what they believe. And others have an equal right to disagree without being automatically labelled as PC, lefties, Marxists, and worse.

 

This is not, I hope, a sermon from the viewpoint of perceived "moral superiority". I do not claim to be by nature nicer, kinder, and more tolerant than any of you. If I were "white" I could possibly be extremely racist. I would hope not, but I certainly can't be sure. And I would certainly say that despite the nasty incidents of racism, my general experience of other people, both in the UK and elsewhere, has been good. I thank all those many people, mainly white, with whom I have interacted, who have treated me with kindness and respect.

 

While matters on this front have become better than in my youth, I fear that recent events in both the UK and the USA are turning the clock back. Whatever side is "right" ( and I don't mean right-wing!) in the Brexit/Remain or the Trump/non-Trump "debates", what is sad is that our countries have become even more divided, with bitterness and hatreds - and not just between races - being exacerbated by populist politicians of the worst sort. It is surely incumbent on all of those who wish for the better side of human nature to prevail in our countries, to be more careful and moderate in our language.

 

As at least three posters have stated in this thread, it is simply a matter of being respectful and sensitive. Thank you very much for your kind and considered posts.

 

 

 

 

[FrankH]

I should add that of course people of any "race" can be racist. I am sure that I have some attitudes which might be construed as such. I'm not proud of them, and try to overcome them.

[Mary]

It seems to me that some posters  think that if they don't attack any discussion very hard, they will end up with no ballet left.

 

Well none of us want that, and in fact I don't think anyone  in this discussion has suggested completely abandoning LB, or even making very major changes.

 

Every time a production is put on, it is different. What we see is the result of innumerable decisions by  a team at the theatre.

To make these changes is not 'censorship'- it is part of the normal process of performance practice which goes on all the time, reflecting changing public taste and style of performance.

 

To give some specific examples, -over the years one aspect of LB has been changed- I refer to the scene featuring blacked up children known as 'picaninnies' still in the Bolshoi version last time I saw it.

 

Would anyone like to complain about that change and say we should keep it?

 

I think most people nowadays would say  - Let's change that.

 

I think if I were staging LB next time I would change the presentation of the fakirs. Earlier in this thread they were referred to as 'savages' (!) and certainly noone I took to the ballet has understood they are meant to be Indian holy men. They have rasta wigs for one  thing and they do a sort of repeated grovelling movement - they have no dignity and seem to be like a representation of what used to be called 'an inferior race'- rather than the dignity of 'holy men'.

So yes I would like to change that.

 

I think the production could be improved- the dancing certainly couldn't!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bridiem]

33 minutes ago, Mary said:

It seems to me that some posters  think that if they don't attack any discussion very hard, they will end up with no ballet left.

 

Well none of us want that, and in fact I don't think anyone  in this discussion has suggested completely abandoning LB, or even making very major changes.

 

Every time a production is put on, it is different. What we see is the result of innumerable decisions by  a team at the theatre.

To make these changes is not 'censorship'- it is part of the normal process of performance practice which goes on all the time, reflecting changing public taste and style of performance.

 

 

I don't know about 'no ballet', but it's clear that some commentators do wish to 'excise' works altogether (as Luke Jennings's outlines in his review, in which he gives his opinion (qualifying it as 'personal' to imply that its perfectly debatable) that La B should remain (but only in order to remind everyone of the stupidity of 19th-century Europeans, not because of its quality)).

 

I agree that productions change to an extent over time according to current style and taste, and that's fine and inevitable. Calling them 'dangerous' and 'problematic' simply because they reflect attitudes of a different era, or even simply attitudes which one may dislike, is in itself dangerous and problematic. And if a work is no good, the likelihood is that it won't survive anyway.

Edited November 22, 2018 by bridiem

[Mary]

I understand what you mean bridiem.

 

I just can't see any actual sign of works being got rid of entirely etc- -is this actually happening?

 

I rather wish your last sentence was true but looking round the West End not sure that it is!🙂

 

 

[bridiem]

 

6 minutes ago, Mary said:

I just can't see any actual sign of works being got rid of entirely etc- -is this actually happening?

 

I don't know. But people like Luke Jennings are influential.

[bangorballetboy]

11 minutes ago, bridiem said:

 

 

I don't know. But people like Luke Jennings are influential.

 

Are they?  I very much doubt it.

[Sim]

54 minutes ago, bridiem said:

 

 

I don't know. But people like Luke Jennings are influential.

Gosh I hope not!!  Critics no longer have the influence or importance they once had.  

[Sunrise]

16 minutes ago, Sim said:

Gosh I hope not!!  Critics no longer have the influence or importance they once had.  

 

I agree, with forums and social media, I think critics, whilst respected for their experience, have become just one voice amongst many.

[Ian Macmillan]

Well, whether as a measure of critics' voices or something else, weekly views of recent Links posts are down by roughly 1000/week on the same time last year. 

[Sunrise]

17 minutes ago, Ian Macmillan said:

Well, whether as a measure of critics' voices or something else, weekly views of recent Links posts are down by roughly 1000/week on the same time last year. 

 

I have to admit I'm one who doesn't go looking for critics reviews anymore. But if I had Twitter I could see the appeal in engaging with critics directly.

[capybara]

Unfortunately, the collective voice of the' critics' DOES count in terms of the reputation of choreographers, productions and dancers.

 

And those in the ballet world who read them take more notice of them than the accumulation of views online.