Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Why not?


Recommended Posts

You watch Corsaire for the story?

I'm thinking of Romeo & Juliet (the MacMillan), where some things must be explained, like the contents of the note Nurse delivers to Romeo. But even in that piece, you have a boy approaching manhood who comes from a clan dressed in green. He falls in love with a girl on brink of womanhood who comes from a clan dressed in red. Some of her folks kill some of his folks, etc. It's pretty clear.

Does La Sylphide need notes? I don't think so. The ambiguities of that ballet are philosophical ambiguities, not narrative ones.

Link to comment

Without a story, there would be no reason to watch Le Corsaire at all, except perhaps at a gala where they drag out the pas-de-deux-that's-really-a-pas-de-trois-and-it-shows or at a ballet school recital at which everyone just wants to show off technique. If the story doesn't matter, then who cares whether there's mime or not, whether the dancers bother to create a character or even move their arms differently from Swan Lake. The story is what keeps Le Corsaire (or any ballet) from being merely a technical display or classroom exercise. Whether it is currently danced that way is another matter--I was referring to how it was probably meant to be performed originally--as an exotic drama. Le Corsaire happens to have a more complicated story than other ballets; therefore, a synopsis is needed to let the audience know what to expect and to help them follow along, especially if they are not used to ballet.

No, La Sylphide does not need notes because the story is put first, not the dancing. In Petipa ballets, the dancing is first.

Link to comment

The mime we see today -- and I'm sure this includes the new-old Kirov reconstructions -- is a very streamlined version of the original. From what I understand, the 19th century ballet audiences understood the elaborate mimetic language (and it was nothing less) of their day very well. Even if it were resurrected, reconstructed or reinvented, would it have meaning to the audience today? Fokine was stripping it away long before Balanchine became important.

Hans, you write about some ballets' stylistic differences being tied to character. Should the classical passages of Corsaire really be danced so differently from Sleeping Beauty or Bayadere? I believe Swan Lake is stylistically unique, and its lakeside scenes should be recognized as such, just as the "Spanish" flavor of DonQ sets it (except for the vision scene) apart from other ballets.

The joke running through the ABT video of Le Corsaire is that while the dancers understood their characters' relationships to each other and the action of inidividual scenes, none of them was really successful in piecing it together as a whole. We can enjoy the pas d'esclave, the Odalisques, the Jardin Anime, the pas de deux/trois and character dances very well for the beauty of the choreography and the dancers' ability to convey not just technique, but mood, musicality and the joy of dancing. The dancing itself tells nothing about the plot, does not move it forward. The plot is nothing more than an excuse to hang some dancing onto. That appeared to be Petipa's sense of it, and it is mine.

You might want to see Mindy Aloff's article on the Great Performances website, where she notes how different the story of the ballet is from Byron's poem that inspired it. Of course, that opens other cans of worms (addressed by Aloff): to what extent did the librettist rely on the Byron? And how many changes crept in during the intervening years?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/lecorsaire/look.html

Link to comment

YES, absolutely the classical passages should be danced differently depending upon which ballet they are from. The technique is the same, but the character of the dancing should be different. The dancing definitely should tell something about the plot; and the fact that ABT didn't bother to show it is their own fault. The dancing doesn't always have to move the plot forward, but it must at least try to relate to it somehow. Otherwise, why are they dancing? They were just in a theater one night and decided to dance a few variations? What motivates them to dance quickly, slowly, happily, sadly? Their experiences in life, and each character's experience shows in his/her dancing. Watching robots executing tours de force holds no interest for me--I want to see people on the stage with some reason for dancing other than to show off their extensions or to look pretty. Plotless ballets don't have stories, but some are still motivated by life experiences--everyone can relate to the feeling of sadness or anger or whatever emotion the performer expresses without having to know details. To express more complicated emotions, I think a plot, however vague, is necessary, and sometimes no program notes are necessary. But to just watch Le Corsaire's grand pas de trois is incredibly dull without knowing how the characters are related. The feats of athleticism are interesting up to a point, but when I've seen them once, the interest is gone and I need something deeper.

Re: the Byron poem, who cares what differences there are? The ballet has its own story, and just because it shares a title with a poem does not mean it has to recreate the poem in tiresome exactness. Of course changes crept in (or were shoved in) over the years; the ballet must be true to itself and have its own motivation, which may or may not need to be explained with a synopsis. Are you arguing that we should just get rid of anything that isn't a classical variation or a pas de x? It would make productions shorter, but I can't think of any other benefits.

Link to comment

Hans, I've been considering your last post sporadically through the afternoon and evening. Just a few final notes for the record, as it seems you've taken us to the point where we can firmly agree that we will never agree.

To the degree that the Petipa ballets are danced differently from each other (and here I've been referring to the company on stage, not merely the principals), I see the differences informed more by the music than by any story.

You and I have values that are at least to some extent mutually contradictory. You hold onto yours -- which are perfectly valid -- with a tenacity that challenges my bullheadedness. The challenge on this thread has been fun. Thanks for the mental workout! ;)

Link to comment

In terms of the story of Corsaire and characterization, I think it does matter very much. Just compare Malakhov's Lankendem with anyone elses (he is creating a character) or different dancers in the Pas d'esclave. Some just danced, and some danced the underlying emotions, and it made a huge difference.

But back to the topic! Actually, I think with a great choreographer anything can be danced, and with a poor one, nothing works. Ben Stevenson's The Snow Maiden had pretty much everything that Swan Lake (or the Platonic version of it) had--Tchaikovsky, a human/supernatural interaction with a tragic ending, and a good excuse for the corps to wear white, but it still ranks as the Ballet I Would Least Want to See Again.

I think often the problem with translating operas into ballets is that the ballets try to be too literal. Since no one can use mime now, the steps have to tell the actual story, rather than enrich or explicate specific emotions (like Aurora's solos do--can you imagine what the ballet would look like if the King had to dance "you are sixteen (or 20 or whatever) and you must marry"; ditto Siegfried's mother?)

Link to comment

No question there, Cargill. Medora is not the same as Aurora. Desiree is not the same as Solor. But how are the three Odalisques different from the three Shades? How are the Don Q Dryads different from Lilac Fairy's Retinue? That's the issue I was trying to define. It seems to me simply a matter of the steps and the music -- of those two elements defining the final product pretty completely.

Link to comment

Yes, carbro, I think we should agree to disagree on that point. I do see a difference, though, between the odalisques and shades, and even in the corps de ballet. The shades have variations perfectly illustrating qualities of spirits freed of earthly weight and cares--they should be danced peacefully, demonstrating souls in perfect calmness, and lightly--notice the running steps en pointe, the flying jumps. Very different from the Odalisques, which are a dream of the Pasha. They are full of life, vibrant, with brilliant beats. The shades are mere shadows of the dead; the odalisques are lively, beautiful young women, and I think the steps show it, though in my opinion, it is done more effectively with the shades.

In contrast, I'm not too sure the Lilac Fairy's dryads (I assume you refer to the ones in the vision scene...?) should be different from Don Q's dryads--they're the same type of mythical creature, after all. However, they should absolutely be differentiated from the shades, swans, wilis, and sylphs. It's not so much that each Petipa ballet must have its very own style of dancing but rather that characters should be consistent and distinct from each other. The Lilac Fairy's attendants, for example, in the prologue should be light and shimmery, weightless, but alive and benevolent. The dryads are much more mysterious.

Link to comment

Thanks, Hans. I was referring to Lilac Fairy's Prologue attendants, actually, not the Dryads or five fairies.

Yes, I would agree that the other corps groups you cite have unique qualities. Wilis and sylphs are related, although wilis are vengeful and tragic, and sylphs are not. Swans are in a class of their own.

Really appreciate your thoughtful response.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...