"Forward to Petipa"what makes Petipa great?
Posted 06 July 2005 - 09:26 AM
Or make it the ten most significant things about him as a choreographer -- imagine you were giving a lecture to the rest of us, what would be the things you'd MOST want to bring out?
Say you had an hour (55 minutes), what would be your priorities? What clips would you show us?
Seriously -- if you thoguht we REALLY wanted to know, to be enlightened, turned on, to have his world opened up to us -- what would you say?
Posted 06 July 2005 - 11:03 AM
1. The way he used both mime and dance to tell a story.
2. His choreographic structure in the pure dance sections. (Balanchine once said that you could learn everything necessary about how to structure a dance from watching Petipa.)
3. His infinite inventiveness within the formal structures--Petipa is never boring.
4. His sense of what was appropriate for each dancer and ballet and his ability to meld the two.
Posted 08 July 2005 - 08:21 AM
yeah, one of hte first things I'd have to mention is the fruitful way he keeps hybridizing folk-dance and pointe technique -- playing them off each other for similarity, contrast, vitality, clarity, energy, rhythm --
and the way he can advance a LARGE argument in distinct sequences, so that each point gets made in he most appropriate way....
he's never boring.... bu by the end of the evening such an incredible variety of stuff has passed before your eyes.
Posted 08 July 2005 - 08:23 AM
Posted 08 July 2005 - 08:30 AM
Petipa really had a gift for seeing both the forest and the trees--his concepts are so broad and grand, yet exceptionally detailed and refined.
Posted 08 July 2005 - 08:50 AM
A genuine question. The Shades scene in La Bayadere, or has that changed over time? Can anyone point to anything?
Posted 08 July 2005 - 09:00 AM
For me, it's the structure and, the more I'm learning about 18th century ballet, the way he used the forms of a century ago in new (then) ways. And the variations -- he makes it look so easy to make interesting classical choreography. (But if it's so easy, then why have only Fokine, Ashton and Balanchine been able to do it since?)
Posted 08 July 2005 - 10:13 AM
as i recall the kirov's 'reconstruction' of BAYADERE neglected to re-visit the Shades scene, but that some of the details i noted in the last act seemed to echo those that doug pointed out to me in the notated Shades sc.
so, if doug weighs in, there'll be concrete commentary.
Posted 08 July 2005 - 05:42 PM
And, Well, yes, Leigh, that is SO true-- it's almost like with Homer, how can you know what the "REAL" text is.... and as soon as you try to get specific, there you are wondering if this passage is Lopukhov (the toe-hops in Giselle) or nijinska (the fish-dives in sleeping beauty) or whoever it was that added the little temps de fleche to the Breadcrumb Fairy's variation (if indeed Sergeyev's version can be trusted to be the TRUTH in that version) ....
And what DID Petipa choreograph for the coda of the black swan before Legnani did her fouettes instead? Almost certainly, he rarely/never choreographed hte men's variations. And DID Aurora corkscrew her wrists in her act 3 variation -- Diaghilev said it was a Russian dance, so she must have.... unless somebody else saw an opportunity and "developed" those details....
Well, there are some accretions it's easy to doubt: in the Black Swan adage, where ballerinas now do grand jetes in second it used to be just a glissade, right? We've seen that change. And in Kitri's variation, she probably DID do those little pas de chevals and hops, huh? It looks like a folk dance set on pointe (a lot like the Pony, actually), and THAT's the sort of thing my hunch inclines me to believe in, whereas the Bolshoi's version just has a bunch of releves with no danciness to them that seems to reveal nothing in particular, just when we need some insight into our girl.
You wonder, if he changed things for particular dancers as Balanchine did? In Aurora's act 3 variation, e.g., those sissonnes changes: some ballerinas do them in second, others do them through fourth, some do 3 sissonnes, others squeeze in FOUR. And of course, the balance that follows that -- in soussus? in retire? in attitude? one sees them all...... did Petipa care?
BUT -- it IS clear that he gave the toe-hops to fairies, like Tchaikovsky gave the celesta to the Sugar plum fairy -- these were effects of other-worldly delicacy he wanted, as if he could add a new register to the instrument. And Aurora has a kind of sprightliness but she's NOT fairy light. Right? (Not even Sizova, who could jump like nothing else on earth, and her sauts de chats are among hte most amazing things i've ever seen, cultivated that skipping-on-water look of the fairies....
You can say THAT pretty safely....
I wish DOug WOULD say something here..... please.
Posted 08 July 2005 - 08:37 PM
Posted 08 July 2005 - 09:34 PM
Gina Ness, on Jul 9 2005, 12:37 AM, said:
Posted 09 July 2005 - 07:01 PM
Posted 09 July 2005 - 08:01 PM
Posted 09 July 2005 - 08:19 PM
Does anyone buy Kirkland's hypothesis from Dancing on My Grave, that the port de bras describes Aurora's life story? I've looked for it at just about every opportunity, and it doesn't quite congeal for me.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases: