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

"Fixing problem ballets"


sandik

Recommended Posts

The thread on Swan Lake made me think of this. There are several ballets in the historic repertory that, for one reason or another, have been remade or significantly revised many times. In some cases, the changes are due to issues of money or casting, but in others, the reasons are associated with some difficulty or "problem" that the original work was seen to have. As an historian, I'm of two minds about this process -- I long for the original work to be maintained in some fashion, but as I said in the other thread, I'm also curious to know what the reviser thought was difficult about the original version, and what they do to amend that.

What are some thoughts about this idea within this community? Are all revisions heresey, or are there situations where the newer model is an improvment on the old? Do you have any specific examples of this you can cite?

To start this off, I'd like to open with Firebird, a ballet I love in its original version, but that I think has a weak ending. In part it's due to the scenario -- "happy ending, happy ending" is tough to pull off unless you take a page from Petipa's book and reserve some significant dancing for the ending. A processional in full Russian regalia is handsome, but not kinetically exciting. (I know the monsters usually come in for more criticism than the ending, but not with me.) Of the versions I've seen, I felt that John Taras made one of the best efforts, by reintroducing the Firebird at the end, but it still had a slightly "ok, already" feeling.

So, am I out on a limb, or do other people have similar problems with other ballets? The description of this forum did mention "provocative opinion..."

Link to comment

Sometimes, the choreographer him/herself is responsible for shooting a perfectly good ballet in the foot. Most times, the choreographer's own changes are perfectly harmless and a few times, there's actually an improvement.

Robert Joffrey had three different versions of "Pas des Déesses" - easy, medium, and miserably difficult, and it didn't seem to matter, as long as the casts were right. Anton Dolin kept tinkering with "Pas de Quatre" every time he staged it, and sometimes, he'd blow up in rehearsal, because he'd want some version he'd shown somebody, but not the present cast! Tudor would tailor parts, mostly in terms of inflection and accent, or acting coaching as he did in "Offenbach in the Underworld". Balanchine was one who should have left well enough alone most of the time. I'm sorry, but I do prefer "Ballet Imperial" over "Piano Concerto #2", and that's mostly cosmetic. The "Harlequinade" from the '65 season was a whole lot better than the one he revived.

Link to comment

I have always had a problem with the 'complete' Swan Lake. In my early years of ballet-going I saw only Act II and an occasional Black Swan PDD. My first complete Swan Lake was when the Sadler's Wells visited New York. My one benefit, I decided, was the beautiful melancholic Act IV. As we are all aware, the Ballet has been truncated --and Act IV is usually 'on-the-block' ready to be chopped away (to leave more time for the Jester :wink: ??) I must have 8 or 9 version of Swan Lake on tape and whenever I watch one I fast-forward Act I, watch all of Act II, zap through the national dances of Act III until the Black Swan, and hope for a good Act IV. I sometimes wonder what I have gained since my first encounter with Swan Lake Act II and the Black Swan PDD.

Link to comment

Great question! I'd divide the issue into two:

One,when the ballet really didn't work and needed to be fixed and

Two, when the ballet was just fine but the audience didn't get it (clash of aesthetics and/or education) or it's no longer performed in a convincing way.

I'd love to see the real original firebird, with the Firebird in harem pants and a processional by people who could make a processional look like a grand apotheosis and not the March of the Supers.

My favorite "fix" is one I read about in Copenhagen in the 1930s. The Danes danced "Spectre de la Rose" the right way, the way it should have been done in the first place, i.e., their way. The Rose was danced by a ballerina, and there was now a Young Man asleep in the chair.

Was Fokine really wrong? Or was the audience coming from another aesthetic planet? (They also found Spectre too athletic and, as late as the 1930s, wrote of "Our Master's" brilliant use of the same music -- in a comic pantomime scene as a prologue to "Konservatoriet.")

I also agree with Mel about some of Balanchine's rethinkings. As for Swan Lake, et al.: I'll take a truly grand version, or the truncated highlights one, but spare me from the mush in the middle, which is our regular fare.

Link to comment
Great question!  I'd divide the issue into two:

One,when the ballet really didn't work and needed to be fixed and

Two, when the ballet was just fine but the audience didn't get it (clash of aesthetics and/or education) or it's no longer performed in a convincing way.

I'd love to see the real original firebird, with the Firebird in harem pants and a processional by people who could make a processional look like a grand apotheosis and not the March of the Supers.

My favorite "fix" is one I read about in Copenhagen in the 1930s.  The Danes danced "Spectre de la Rose" the right way, the way it should have been done in the first place, i.e., their way.  The Rose was danced by a ballerina, and there was now a Young Man asleep in the chair.

Was Fokine really wrong?  Or was the audience coming from another aesthetic planet?  (They also found Spectre too athletic and, as late as the 1930s, wrote of "Our Master's" brilliant use of the same music -- in a comic pantomime scene as a prologue to "Konservatoriet.")

I also agree with Mel about some of Balanchine's rethinkings.  As for Swan Lake, et al.:  I'll take a truly grand version, or the truncated highlights one, but spare me from the mush in the middle, which is our regular fare.

The current Royal Ballet has this filthy little habit of "Fixing" ballets to suit their current form, this takes several threads and not just the two Alexandra mentioned:

1) We need evening length moneymakers and we can only stage R&J so many times - Into this category comes the "Macmillan rep" as it's euphemistically called. And anyone who's seen Isadora, Anastasia and Mayerling can only attest to the fact that it's not so much rep as "retch". A restaging of a full length Isadora was threatened for this season with problem areas "fixed". The only way to fix that one was to burn all the notation, thankfully it was abandoned; then comes the problematic Anastasia. Anastasia's third act worked in it's original context due to the genius of Lynn Seymour (I think that perhaps the Seymour/Macmillan relationship is unique in that it's one where the muse outgrew the her inspiratee (bad word) in terms of artistry. Anyone, who's seen a subsequent cast of Anastasia knows that this is one turkey only the muse could fix.

2) We can't dance our classics anymore, let's get another production as it's obviously the choreographer not the company's fault - Anyone who saw the Messel/Ashton/De Valois after Petipa production of Sleeping Beauty knows that this was one of the world's great productions of that classic. However, around about the early-nineties when the rot really set in at the RB and it became clear that the company was no longer technically able to dance their signature production a whole load of "fixing" went on. Firstly the beautiful elegant Messel production was scrapped for Maria Bjornson's gothic atrocity. The result being they company danced it worse than ever due to the cumbersome sets and costumes. Next the entire production was jettisoned for the new Makarova production, frou frou, over elaborate, some nice fairy variations which admittedly did a lot for a few soloists in terms of classicism but dramturgically was a real mess. The production wasn't broke, it just didn't have the artists who could fix it.

3) Balanchine is in our heritage as we are a direct descendent of the Diaghilev tradition, so we must dance it, only problem is, we can't - Anyone who's seen the Royal make a hash out of Apollo, Symphony, Prodigal, Danses concertantes etc can only be aware how the current star system of the Royal is so divorced from any coherent tradition that they play huge cavalier choices with musicality, and choreography.

Link to comment

Alexandra, to me, it doesn't seem as if Fokine was really "wrong" in any way...more that the Danes just turned his ballet into La Sylphide, which they were used to. Also, if they had a woman dancing those steps, no wonder they thought it was too athletic.

Link to comment

The comments on the athleticism of the choreography were made about the original; sorry, I didn't make that clear. Fokine staged some of his works for the RDB in the late 1920s and they stayed in repertory. There's a photo of Balanchine as the Rose! (from his brief visit with the company in the early '30s).

I think Sandi has raised an interesting question -- are there ballets -- great ballets -- that you wish the choreographer had just done one little thing differently?

Link to comment

Seems that there's also a third issue-- when the choreographer "shoots a perfectly good ballet in the foot" :green: I agree that Balanchine often did this-- I too prefer (vastly) Ballet Imperial to Tchaik Concerto (how exactly does Hommage a Petipa and the Maryinsky benefit from flimsy chiffon rather than tutus and scenery?), and the big one in this category IMO is Apollo. the appalling mutilation of the birth scene and the final tableau (the peacock is now the final image as done at NYCB, rather than the amazing pose on the steps)-- does anyone feel this helped Apollo? While it's true that Balanchine changed steps constantly for dancers, tinkered often with ballets in many ways, etc, this seems to me different from cutting a score (Apollo) or redoing an entire idea (was there any audience member who LIKED the Firebird where the ballerina did no dancing, circa 1972 or 3 to 1984?????). Violette Verdy did brises or pas de chat in Raymonda Variations rather than the multiple pirouettes; no two versions of the danseur's role in Symphony in C I are the same; the turning combination from Tchaik Pas coda is different with each ballerina. these changes, however, don't alter the entire ballet.

any thoughts on this?

Link to comment
. . . IMO is Apollo. the appalling mutilation of the birth scene and the final tableau (the peacock is now the final image as done at NYCB, rather than the amazing pose on the steps)-- does anyone feel this helped Apollo?

Yeah, my wife, but then there's no explaining her sometime. :D She loves the sunburst image, and doesn't care for the birth scene. I love the sunburst but prefer the full ballet for all the usual reasons.

Alexandra, do you remember where the photo of Balanchine as the rose is published?

Link to comment

It's in a Danish book by Viggo Cavillig called Balletens Bogen (The ballet book) He's in costume, but with no showercap. the rose was Ulla Poulsen. the shot is just from the waist up.

I've heard there's the same, or a similar, one as part of one of the NY Balanchine exhibits -- perhaps the one at the library? (It's interesting that he danced this, I think, because one always reads he "wasnt' much of a dancer." Well.)

Link to comment

"Balanchine's awful remakes " deserve a thread of its own....

there's already one gonig, about lost choreography from "Emeralds" --

Another place where Mr B rechoreographed because of hte tempos was the Arabian solo in Nutcracker, which Gloria Govrin was bringing down the house in till the master decided hat Tchaikovsky's markings were for a quicker tempo and rechoreographed it as a faster dance...

And hte ballet he abandoned was Baiser de la Fee, for which he couldn't find a suitable finale (the hero has to freeze to death crossing a glacier, and here's almost 10 minutes of beautiful miusic to die to....)

Link to comment
final tableau (the peacock is now the final image as done at NYCB, rather than the amazing pose on the steps)-- does anyone feel this helped Apollo?

On this matter I do totally disagree. I feel the revised Apollo reinvented it for the latter half of the 20th century. And was the product of a master letting the choreography tell the story.

True the birth and tableau are arresting images, but they are very much in a style of expressionist theatre popular with the early 20th century when the ballet was made.

The birth, indeed is bathetic, the convulsions of Leto the unwrapping of Apollo, whilst very much in the Graham mode of expressionist dance, actually undercut the drama of the young God finding himself alone awaiting the attendent muses. Moreover the music overture tells the story of birth as dramatically and potently as the Leto scene ever could.

The final "peacock" is not a peacock but the sun, an assumption of power, responsibility and Godhood, it is by far and away the most powerful image within the ballet. The final procession and tableau is merely repetition and useless repetition in light of the sun ray tableau. It is an overstatement.

Yes the ballet works in both formats, but with the original prelude and finale it always runs into the dangers of bathos, hyperbole and very much as if one is watching an historical reconstuction of dance history. The paring down and revisions make the ballet timeless, effortless and rely on the simplicity and sparseness of post WW2 art to tell the story.

The important question to ask is "even though the omissions are beautiful, do they add anything significant to the dramaturgy?" I don't think they do, and obviously neither did Balanchine.

Link to comment

Well, you could also make the case that Balanchine cut the birth scene because he had a dancer (Peter Martins) who wasn't a convincing baby. (And the ballet predates Graham. Balanchine's influences at that time were German modern dance, German expressionism.)

I like the peacock, though. I'd like to see both versions in repertory. Among current NYCB dancers, Hubbe would be wonderful in the complete Apollo.

Link to comment

Simon G's point about Apollo also crops up in a couple of the recollections in "I Remember Balanchine" where it was suggested by someone, I forget whom, that Balanchine cut the scenes that were more obviously products of their era, although expressionism wasn't mentioned.

Link to comment

Simon--

I'm afraid we do disagree utterly. I think the "peacock", or "sunburst", image, is obviously a matter of individual interpretation (each viewer WILL see it differently and Balanchine certainly did not, a la Tudor, for example, make a habit of telling his audiences what to see in his images), and I also think that there is no esthetic difference in your characterization of the mime/birth scene as "bathetic" and your description of the final image and what it conveys to you. Both are emotional reactions, which is fine in ballet and as it should be (you like one, you dislike the other) However, your positive reaction to one doesn't make that opinion less emotional or more definitive in any way.

On the subject of I Remember Balanchine and Apollo stories, by the way, William Weslow says ..."Jacques was unforgettable when he turned and unwound the swaddling cloth and struggled to be born. Balanchine, I'm afraid, cut that out because he didn't want Baryshnikov to do the wild pirouettes at the beginning and create a sensation."

Agree completely with Paul on "Balanchine's awful remakes"... Balanchine was ambivalent on the subject of his dancers' virtuosity and the possibility that said virtuosity might somehow eclipse his choreography. Bruhn, Villella, Weslow, Hayden, Walczak, and Kirkland, to name some disparate sources, have all spoken about this in print.

Link to comment
However, your positive reaction to one doesn't make that opinion less emotional or more definitive in any way.

Sorry Tempusfugit on this point I have to entirely disagree with you. I am always right, my tastes and insights are more reasoned, elegant and au point than anyone's. My intellect sharper, my final say the definitive from which no appeal may be heard.

Link to comment

Simon, I wonder how many critics have secretly wanted to say just that? :)

tempusfugit, I wasn't thinking of Weslow's interview, entertaining as it was. Someone else said that eliminating the birth scene emphasized the neoclassic style of the piece and made it less bound to its time and that was a likely reason why Balanchine snipped it. We should remember, also, that he may have had any number of reasons for doing what he did. The late Robert Garis had some interesting things to say on a certain ambivalence Balanchine occasionally showed toward Stravinsky, which he suggested might have emerged in forms such as the radical noodling with "Firebird" and the trimming of "Apollo."

According to "Holding On to the Air" Farrell queried him about the cutting of the score of "Apollo" with the observation, "You don't usually cut music like that." He allowed as how he didn't. End of discussion. :)

Link to comment

Yes, dirac, I remember that Farrell quote as well, and also some of Garis' observations about Stravinsky scores and Balanchine, which were interesting. I was, however, thinking of the Weslow interview. :-) I've been a fanatical admirer of Balanchine for many years, since my first sight of Serenade (the first ballet of his I saw), and my admiration for his genius is in no way blemished by my awareness that there are many plausible reasons for his later revisions of some of his masterpieces-- not all of those reasons flattering.

Link to comment

Seriously re: Apollo. I do very much love the original version, I'm not saying I don't the convulsive birth rites of Leto, the attendants, the screaming Apollo, and that final blinding ascension. (However, on this point I've seen this done on a huge opera house stage where it really cuts the mustard, and a much smaller stage where it doesn't have anywhere near the same impact and does descend into bathos.)

But, and this is where it really makes the difference for me, Apollo redux just makes sense, or more sense as an eternal work of art, for me it's timeless, it doesn't date.

When I watch the pre-revision ballet I am aware I'm watching a piece from a certain era, whereas the revised Apollo looks as if it could have been created yesterday.

One can conjecture that Balanchine cut it to temper certain dancers or for whatever personal or aesthetic reasons, but when I watch the revised Apollo I just see that he cut it to make its message timeless.

The ascension after the sunray peacock whatever you want to call it, to me looks like a restating of an image or idea that has already been said at full force.

Link to comment

I must respectfully disagree with you. I find the "ascension of Parnassus" to be a vital part of the end of the ballet, and ties it off neatly. Since the revival of the pas de six from "La Vivandiere", furthermore, which was in the Petersburg repertory during Balanchine's youth, the fan of arabesques has lost a lot of its punch and originality for me.

Link to comment
I must respectfully disagree with you.  I find the "ascension of Parnassus" to be a vital part of the end of the ballet, and ties it off neatly.  Since the revival of the pas de six from "La Vivandiere", furthermore, which was in the Petersburg repertory during Balanchine's youth, the fan of arabesques has lost a lot of its punch and originality for me.

Mais, non. Absolument pas, absolument pas Mel. Je suis contre l'ascension a Parnasse.

Oui, c'est vrai que ca contienne une element de classicisme, mais c'est contre les temps de modernisme.

C'est comme Theodore Adorno a ecrit "apres l'Auschwitz, il n'y a plus de la poesie. L'Apollon redux, c'est un Apollon pour un monde sans frontieres ou l'homme est devenu le dieu. C'est un tableau finale ou rien est certaine, ou l'homme est devenu le dieu mais il ne sais plus s'il a le droit. Un monde ou vouloir n'est pas toujour pouvoirs.

Pour moi la choreographie contienne plus que l'image. Les arabesques du tableau, ne sont que des arabesques, c'est presque a dire que l'ascension a Parnasse, c'est dans l'ame.

Mais si tu preferes l'originale c'est bon pour toi. Chacun a son gout. Je n'ai jamais dit le contre.

Link to comment

I am hereby providing my weak translation of the above. Feel free to correct, amend, etc. Done quickly!

************************************

No. Absolutely not, absolutely not Mel. I am against the ascension to Parnassus.

Yes, it's true that it contains an element of classicism, but it is against the time of modernism.

It's as Theodore Adorno wrote, "after Auschwitz, there is no more poetry. Apollo redux is an Apollo for a world without frontiers where man has become the god. It's a final tableau where nothing is certain, where the man has become the god but he no longer knows if he has the right. A world where desire is not always the power to make something happen.

For me choreography contains more than an image. The arabesques of the tableau are not just arabesques, it's almost like saying that the ascension to Parnassus is in the heart.

But if you prefer the original, it's good for you. To each his own. I have never said otherwise.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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