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

"using Swan Lake loosely"


Recommended Posts

But I thought that the whole point of the Nutcracker was that it isn't logical--Marie is either dreaming or really does travel to a fantasy land, and neither scenario calls for logic.

As for whether a ballet's story should be re-worked, I would say (and keep in mind this is totally IMO) "of course not." Classics are classics because they are on some level timeless and they should be allowed to remain that way, not edited by AD's with a desire to put their own stamp on something without the ability of the true choreographer to create something original, whether it's good or not. I'd rather see a thousand new works of mediocre quality that showed at least some sort of original/creative thought or concept than the National Ballet of Heck's AD scrawling a moustache on a previous genius's Mona Lisa.

Link to comment

Hello Hans. :)

Let's take your premise that the classics shouldn't be touched at all.

I have heard many people on this forum say that Nut's first act is dreadfully boring regardless of the company performing it, and that all the real dancing happens in act 2.

I danced Petipa's and it does center more on the children dancing and I could see where people might say the real dancing is in the second act. I have also read that some people don't even go to see the first act, they show up at intermission to catch Act 2.

So if one is familiar with a ballet like that, should they just attend Act 2? Or sit through the whole thing just because it's a "classic"?

And also, why the popularity then, of Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake??

This is an interesting topic because I have seen some remakes that I really like, and some that I don't care for.

Where exactly do we then draw the line? Should we make it black and white: Either do it exactly as originally choreographed, or completely rework it?

And lastly, when ticket sales are dropping off over the years because it's the same old thing (which has happened all over the country with many of the big companies), what are your options, if you still wish to continue your company.

I'll be sitting on pins and needles to see the replies!! :D:)

Clara :)

Link to comment

I'm with Hans. :D

There are just as many posts here -- not that aesthetics are a popularity contest! -- of people who are quite satisfied with the traditional Act I of "Nutcracker". The problems with declining tickets sales are quite complex, partly due to over-familiarity with the same ballet year in and year out, partly because often that ballet isn't very good nor very well danced if you're not related to one of the candy canes, and mostly now because the entertainment industry has discerned a Holiday Market and are going after it for all they're worth.

Re Bourne's "Swan Lake" -- many people do love it. Good for them! Does that mean that we throw out everything else and pander to that audience which is, for the most part, not a ballet audience -- if we're a ballet company? In today's terms --- what is the "product" a ballet company is selling? Ballet? Or anything that can be called dance in the hopes that someone will come and see it, rushing from novelty to novelty?

But taking the name "Swan Lake" and putting it on something entirely different to sells tickets is something that's happening more and more and, to go back to the point in Ismene Brown's article that initially struck me, it's driving ballet to a point where audiences don't have a chance to see a real production and no longer know what one looks like, and that's not good for the art form.

Link to comment
So if one is familiar with a ballet like that, should they just attend Act 2? Or sit through the whole thing just because it's a "classic"?

Whatever they like :D. I would sit through it (if it really was Petipa or Ivanov, which is doubtful, but that's another thread) so that I could try to see why they did it that way and why it was so good that people kept dancing it that way for hundreds of years. If I knew all that and still it grated on me for some reason, I really do think I would still go to that act, if only for the music or the sets or the snow scene. If the production was really so bad that Act I was truly unbearable, Act II probably wouldn't be worth seeing.

I think that ballets should be done as choreographed, no matter who the choreographer is. There's a double standard: "heaven forbid we change a single step of Kylian or Duato or Balanchine" (they're also aided by copyright law) but "Let's do Swan Lake--I've been dying to do one set in Arizona, and we can have a Dance of the Gila Monsters!"

Regarding the issue of ticket sales, if the Louvre were faced with declining admission, I doubt the management would say "I know what will get them in here--seeing all their favorite works painted over in new fun colors! We'll have Versace design it; the Winged Victory can be lime green with gold leaf, and just wait 'til you see what they'll do with the Madonna of the Rocks...." :rolleyes: They would find a way to bring the public in without altering priceless, fragile, ancient masterpieces.

Frankly, it seems arrogant to me to go about playing with the classics as though one considers oneself such a great choreographer that one can improve upon Petipa, whose works laid the foundation for so large a part of our tradition. Besides, the point is to continue the tradition, not hack it to death.

If an idea for a ballet is really worth doing, it is worth doing as a new work with an original concept, even if it turns out not to be a masterpiece--it should be given a fair shot. If it is not worth doing on its own, what is the point of defacing a great work of art with it?

Link to comment

You make some very valid and very funny points,Hans!!! :grinning:

Especially these 2:

I think that ballets should be done as choreographed, no matter who the choreographer is.  There's a double standard: "heaven forbid we change a single step of Kylian or Duato or Balanchine" (they're also aided by copyright law) but "Let's do Swan Lake--I've been dying to do one set in Arizona, and we can have a Dance of the Gila Monsters!" 

Regarding the issue of ticket sales, if the Louvre were faced with declining admission, I doubt the management would say "I know what will get them in here--seeing all their favorite works painted over in new fun colors!  We'll have Versace design it; the Winged Victory can be lime green with gold leaf, and just wait 'til you see what they'll do with the Madonna of the Rocks...." :rolleyes:  They would find a way to bring the public in without altering priceless, fragile, ancient masterpieces. 

I am still laughing at the vision of dancing lizards and Versace re-working Winged Victory!!!! :grinning: :grinning: :grinning:

Thanks-I needed that today!

Clara :D

Link to comment

Excellent points Alexandra. Sorry but when I responded to Hans I didn't see your post.

How do you think we should go about increasing our "Ballet" audience base?

Anyone else can answer too...

I wonder if Petipa/Ivanov were alive today, would they choreograph ballets the same...?

Hans-I'm still laughing about the dancing lizards...can't you just see them holding their 4 little tales whilst mid eschappé... :(

You all have made such great points that I think I'm swayed...not an easy thing to do as anyone who knows me will tell you!!!!!

Clara :(

Link to comment

There is an important difference, however, between Nutcracker and Swan Lake. In the latter, we have a standard version, known in a general way by most dancers and audiences. In the former, for US audiences anyway, the "standard production" is the 1954/65 version by Balanchine. Many are familiar with the general scenario, but the actual steps haven't passed into the language. How much can one tinker with Giselle, for example, before it becomes no longer itself?

Link to comment
Hans-I'm still laughing about the dancing lizards...can't you just see them holding their 4 little tales whilst mid eschappé...

Clara, that is a hilarious image! I think I'll be laughing over that one for quite a while :(

The Petipa/Ivanov question is a good one. Besides the question of whether or not they would choreograph the same way, would audiences enjoy their new ballets, and what would the reviews be like? I imagine they'd have to do certain things differently because today's dancers are not as schooled in mime. I also wonder what they would think of Balanchine's works. Very interesting to ponder.

Link to comment

dido wrote in one post:

I've got 5 or 6 Swan Lake's kicking around here somewhere

and in another post:

Boston Ballet is doing Swan Lake this spring; it will be my first live Swan Lake

Which may be at least part of the point of this thread. If one has seen several productions of Swan Lake and several performances of each production, experiencing a production set on Mars that includes a Dance of the Rovers might be interesting. One could say the same thing about Cosi Fan Tutte set in a diner on the New York State Thruway, The Marriage of Figaro in Trump Tower or MacBeth set in a Central America during a revolution. One can appreciate or not the way the directors or choreographers have "reimagined" classic works but will still remember Makarova and Nagy, Te Kanawa and Von Stade, Terfel and Bartoli, Plummer and Jackson. In my case I would rememeber them as touchstones against which others would be compared.

And if the production is of a work with which one is already very familiar, one can (if necessary, and it often is not) more easily ignore the worst of the reimaging and concentrate on, for example, how well the orchestra handles some of the difficult bits, whether the Countess and Susanna switch lines in the duet, how well the prose and poetry is spoken.

But--if it is first time that one has seen a production of a classic work it is very different. In that case something that (as Hans mentions) continues the tradition may be important to see.

Some reimaginings of classic works play very well on stage. The audience may get new insights into them. But attempting to simple update the time, place and action in order to make the work revelvant to a current audience is bound to fail.

The way that Shakespeare dealt with issues of loyalty, political power, the supernatural and how a diseased mind works is either relevant now or it isn't.

Tchaikovsky and Ivanov had much to say about obsession, beauty and undying love. Updating seems to say that today's audiences are unable to see and hear great ideas expressed in great music and sublime movement.

Before Freud or Marx, Mozart and Da Ponte cut to the heart of conflicts between lovers, within families and among social classes and did so in music and prose that can still move an audience on the first hearing or the fiftieth, whethere set in the 18th century in Europe or the 20th in the United States.

Link to comment

I wonder if works of art somewhat maintained 'in the oral tradition' as some of the folk tales the ballets are based on, have a kind of lifespan whose vitality is extent on fluid interpretation... ultimately they might become so dilute as to vanish (as did many fairy tales, I'm sure)... but to not allow ever any adaptations might make them leaden "museum pieces"... no? It's always so interesting to see what different coaches/directors make of the same work... some, even if they don't remember exactly the same steps, remember what made it vital and try to preserve that ("reconstructions" or "revisualizations"?) Of course, when the work is still in repetoire, it's not a "reconstruction"... but playing "fast & loose" might even get others to take a fresher look when coaching the more traditional interpretation?

Dido, I'm hoping you review BB's Swan Lake and talk a little about the character dances therein... we're losing our 'advanced adult' ballet teacher to BB while she works on the character bits... I'd like to come and bring my munchkin, but my skin crawls at the possibility that she'll prefer the Barbie version.

Link to comment

In many ways, it is impossible for a ballet to remain unchanged forever--styles change, different dancers perform the roles, sets and costumes vary, &c. The only really concrete part of a ballet is the choreographic text, but just as with any other part of theatre, the performance is equally important, which is why dancers must perform the steps with conviction, and this goes right back to why the education of dancers is so important--so that they understand the time period, what is appropriate, &c. Music history classes do this--they discuss world events and social trends and how they affected composers and their music. Dancers, when was the last time you had a class like this?

And so you get dancers who think that Swan Lake is "boring" or "stiff" and irrelevant, and who become AD's who decide to make cuts and edit choreography and set it on a farm in Minnesota.

Also, I don't think a comparison to opera is valid here. One can move about and act in a manner appropriate to any time period while singing the same music. In a ballet, though, it would look ridiculous to have everyone reverencing each other in 1950's tuxedos and evening gowns--the setting necessarily changes the movement.

Link to comment

Addding to Hans' point, opera and classica drama have fixed texts. I've seen a few "updates" of Euripides, a wonderful Meldea and a not so great Children of Heracles (hard to do much with that one though) in the last year or two. Or that Richard the III with Ian McKellen (which I also liked a lot).

But everyone in the audience has at least available to them the original text, and I don't have that for Swan Lake. What's worse is I don't even know what I'm getting. The typical notation (if memory serves) is "choreography by ?, after Petipa/Ivanov." In that production of Medea, they even included the translator's name, and I could make a judgement as to how he solved the literal/poetic problem.

Now if I watch my 5 or 6 Swan Lakes right before I go to see a performance ( :devil: How long would that take!) maybe I'll have some idea of what's old and what's new.

So I guess I don't have a problem with "updating the classics" in theory, but I think it's borderline dishonest to do it when very few people in your audience have any way of understanding what the original looked like. Then too, there really are plenty of people who just want to see Swan Lake.

Link to comment

Cabro,

Almost every single ballet is named for the peice of music, TTBOMK. A choreo gets to name the dance peice only if a combination of musical peices is used.

So, if someone decides to do a SL and uses an entire male cast wearing goat skins, it would still be called SL.....

Oops, I think someone actually did that. :)

MJ

Link to comment

MJ, while it is frequently the case that the ballet bears the same name as its music, a choreographer can name a ballet anything s/he desires. There is no hard and fast rule.

In the case of Swan Lake (and many other ballets for which the music was commissioned), it is the reverse -- the music is named for the ballet. My point was that Swan Lake has so many of its own conventions and is so deeply embedded in the public's (not only balletomanes') mind, that it is more than the Ivanov/Petipa original; it is almost a genre unto itself. Now, I'm afraid I've muddled it more than clarified. :) Hope not. :devil:

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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