Multinational Ballet Theatre!

[Mme. Hermine]

And Mel, wouldn't those premises be where the Turning Point's studio sequences were filmed? (where that empty lot was for so many years after the building was torn down). I used to use that corner as a meeting place, such as "meet me by the Paramount sign".

[Victoria Leigh]

The school was on 57th street, west of 8th Ave., not on a corner.

[Mme. Hermine]

Afterward, tho. on broadway... ???

[Victoria Leigh]

Ah, yes, it was on B'way after that. The one back in the 60's was 57th St.

[Hans]

Art076, I thought the point of ABT was to perform classical works as well as new ones, as opposed to NYCB, which existed because of its choreographer.

Part of the trouble is that the new works are not very good.

[incorrect content deleted--for correct info, see Alexandra's post below.]

[Alexandra]

Small historical point. The National Ballet of Washington was a Ballets Russes heir, and folded in 1974. It had no connection with the Washington Ballet, which began in 1976; its first dancers were all recent graduates of the School.

Larger point. I think ABT can call itself THE American company if it wants. We don't have charters here that I can think of, except for The Offical State Flower. Now that takes an act of Congress.

[Hans]

Thanks, Alexandra--I edited the post.

[Manhattnik]

Of course, in the "good old days," ABT was just plain old BT.

Can someone recall (or look up) when the "American" was added, and why?

[Alexandra]

This is from memory, but in the Charles Payne ABT book, I believe he said that it was for the first tour to London. I don't remember the exact date -- late 40s, as close to the end of the war as was practical. I remember his reasoning to be that it was marketing (I don't mean this in a negative way). This was a company new to Londoners, and having the nationality in the name would help identify it.

[atm711]

Ballet Theatre had its first English tour in 1946---from July 4 through August 31 at Covent Garden. Andre Eglevsky, Nora Kaye and Alicia Alonso performed, and while in London Keith Lester staged his version of 'Pas De Quatre', and Ashton staged 'Les Patineurs' for them. They were still known as 'Ballet Theatre' for quite a while after that---I think the name change took place after 1955---why?--I don't know. :shrug:

[vrsfanatic]

H. Koegler states ...

....since 1957 it has been known as American Ballet Theatre...

[Alexandra]

This is getting interesting. I checked Payne (his book is "American Ballet Theatre," published by Knopf and the official history) and he has this to say about the name (it' snot helpful):

Note: Throughout this text, American Ballet Theatre is identified simply as Ballet Theatre, although the original title was oficially The Ballet Theatre and for a period of time it addopted the title American National Ballet Theatre.

I could find nothing about the name change. There are two references to name in the index, the first the quote above, the second comments about the London tour -- the company was asked to take another name, but it did not.

In the mid-1950s, though, it toured under State Department auspices, so it would make sense that the "American" got added then. The only thing I could find, though, is this:

But there were those in the press who saw in teh introduction of the French stars and ballets a change in Ballet Theatre's artistic policy--one that placed less emphasis on the American nature of the company. Though this was not true, Chase and Smith had to give it serious consideration because the company could derive benefits from the State Department's Cultural Relations prrogram only if it remained an unquestionably American company. Therefore by way of retort, Payne coined for the souvenir program and the Foundation Newsletter the totally meaningless epithet "American Ballet Theatre American in Sprit--International in Scope." By 1975, when he would have tought that everyone agreed there was no such thing as American ballet, but only ballet choreographed and danced by Americans, he was amazed to find the New York Times seriously recalling the epithet, as though "American in Spirit--International in Scope" was any more meaningful than "Good to the Last Drop."

[carbro]

Note: Throughout this text, American Ballet Theatre is identified simply as Ballet Theatre, although the original title was oficially The Ballet Theatre and for a period of time it addopted the title American National Ballet Theatre.

Ah! That explains this:

Not to mention that ABT refers to itself as "America's national company."  I've heard the reference used as recently as two weeks ago by Kevin McKenzie . . .

[rkoretzky]

IF Kevin McKenzie is indeed referring to ABT as "America's National Company" (or some such sentiment), to my mind that shows a high degree of hubris. I have always considered ABT a European style company that just happens to be based in the US of America. Their repetoire certainly reflects the Europe of past centuries, at least the part of their repetoire that they do very well. NOT a criticism. I love spectacle--but that is European sensibility and culture.

As someone who has spent over 25 years closely watching NYCB, I would be much more likely to give that appellation to them, although even that gives me hesitation. This country is just too vast and varied to have a national ballet, or a national symphony (although there is one that has that name, it does NOT qualify and that's all I shall say about that.), or even a national opera, although perhaps the Met would argue with me about that. NOTE PLEASE: This is not a criticism of ABT, nor an endorsement of NYCB. I do prefer NYCB, in terms of both repetoire and style, but find lots to admire and enjoy across the plaza.

As for the roster, thank you Leigh, for bringing this up! I notice this every time I read an ABT program, and it always brings a bit of humor...But ABT is not the only company that is in this situation. Look at the roster of the Royal Ballet. One of the reasons that there is so much excitement in London over Lauren Cuthbertson is that she is a Brit--born, raised, trained. I predict that she will be a principal soon, and well-deserved imo. I saw her Lilac Fairy and it was magnificent. But she will also be an English girl in a company of dancers who are Italian, Brazilian, Japanese, French, Spanish, Russian, a few others (sorry, too lazy to go back to the website) and Darcey Bussell--who may be nearing the end of her career. Now I am not sure about this--but given that the company IS called the Royal, and that there is a much closer relationhip there between the goverment and the arts....maybe the RB IS the national ballet (although there is one of those too). In any case, I think there will be some pressure to promote Cuthbertson as a home-grown product.

[Alexandra]

I think the basis for ABT's claim to be a national company is that it has, throughout its exsitence, toured extensively all across the country.

[Guest barleys01]

As for the roster, thank you Leigh, for bringing this up! I notice this every time I read an ABT program, and it always brings a bit of humor...But ABT is not the only company that is in this situation. Look at the roster of the Royal Ballet.

I’m sorry if this is slightly off-topic but I’ve always wondered this about the Royal Ballet, too.

I’ve only just started going to Covent Garden in the past couple of years, so my knowledge of the company, especially its history, is patchy at best. I often hear people refer to the good old days in the 60s and 70s when the company was undeniably ‘English’. And then of course I know that today the company is much more international both in terms of the dancers and the repertoire.

So what happened between then and now? Please note that this is a mere curiosity and not meant as a criticism. I am a foreign student myself and personally I can’t imagine not having the opportunities to see the likes of Kobborg and Rojo etc. dance. And I suppose the issue does not seem as startling when seen in the larger context of how society has changed as well. Speaking from personal experience, for example, when my uncle came to study here in Britain about 30 years ago he suffered all sorts of racial abuse. I, on the other hand, have been here for a few years now and my experience has over all been wonderful.

But anyway, I still want to know what people here who have much more knowledge about ballet think. When did the company become dominated by dancers born and/or trained elsewhere? And how important is it that the dancers should have been schooled in the same manner to maintain the stylistic heritage of the company? I am asking this because to me someone like Miyako Yoshida, for example, seems much more ‘English’ than some dancers who are Brit-born and trained. I guess I will find out the answer to this question, or at least part of it, next season when the company will be dancing Ashton a great deal. I also wonder if the pendulum is actually about to swing back. From the patchy knowledge that I have, it seems that the company went through a phase where going international was the thing to do. But now it seems that it’s changing again- I notice that the company is taking in a lot of graduates from the Royal Ballet School and that, for next season at least, most of the works in the repertoire are British.

Again please don’t see this as an us/them, ‘good’/‘bad’ thing. It’s just something I’ve always wondered about- I suppose I just want to fill in the gaps in my knowledge of the company between the 60s and 70s and now. And lastly I suppose we should also consider if there would be platforms for dancers born in countries without national companies to showcase their talents and hard work if the big companies such as ABT and the Royal stopped taking in foreign-trained dancers. After all not everyone is prepared to send their children at relatively young age to train abroad.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

Edited April 18, 2004 by barleys01

[Alexandra]

Hi, barley -- welcome to active posting! I hope we'll hear more from you

I think in the Royal Ballet's case the cause is more easily traced. Under the current EU regulations, any citizen of any EU country can seek employment in any other EU country. Before, tht wasn't the case, and there were visa problems. During the "purely English" years, citizens of any Commonwealth company could be a company member, and many of the company's stars were from Canada (Lynn Seymour), Australia (Robert Helpmann), etc.

(Hope I'm representing the EU regs accurately; I'm sure someone will jump in and correct me if I'm not!)

[Alymer]

That's pretty much the situation Alexandra, and with the EU enlarging still further, the mix in many european companies is likely to become even more varied.

Barley, part of the answer to your question lies with the output of the Royal Ballet School which went through a pretty low period for some years. Derek Deane, the former director of English National Ballet made some pretty harsh comments about the level of dancer being turned out by British vocational dance schools, and though I suspect he was looking to make headlines (which he did) there was more than a little truth in his criticisms.

A further instance was when five of the Royal Ballet's men (principals and soloists) left the company en masse a few years ago to join K Ballet in Japan. When Dowell, who was director at the time, was asked by the general director (Michael Kaiser) how he intended to replace them, he replied that "he'd wait for people to come up through the school". Kaiser told him to "go out and hire the five best male dancers in the world". Well, I don't think he entirely succeded, but that's how we come to have Johan Kobborg as a company member, and I guess it opened management's eyes to the fact that there were some pretty good dancers out there.

By contrast, there are very, very few members the Paris Opera Ballet who were not entirely trained at the school which seems to turn out an endless supply of well trained ddancers. I guess it's like Mr Balanchine said "First a school".

[carbro]

So what happened between then and now? Please note that this is a mere curiosity and not meant as a criticism. I am a foreign student myself and personally I can’t imagine not having the opportunities to see the likes of Kobborg and Rojo etc. dance. And I suppose the issue does not seem as startling when seen in the larger context of how society has changed as well.

I suspect that some of the loss of style undergone by most companies relates to their artistic directors. So many companies that were led by choreographers are now run by dancers -- star dancers with international careers. I suspect that when Anthony Dowell, for example, took over RB, he tried to bring some of the style he'd absorbed from companies where he'd spent time during his dancing days.

The world shrinks day by day, borders once closed are now wide open, and as noted, the EU is making it possible for citizens of member nations to work in other nations, and NYCB, which by tradition brought in very few guests, seems to be making guest artists a regular feature of their seasons.

[Ari]

So what happened between then and now?

The change in the Royal Ballet has been a slow evolution. I'm not as familiar with the history of the company as some others on this site, and I hope they'll chime in, but I can point to a few events that helped bring about the change.

When Ashton stepped down as company director, his successors were not very interested in preserving either his ballets or his style. MacMillan wanted to stage his own ballets, which had a completely different esthetic than Ashton's. The dancers became adept at dancing MacMillan's style, and had difficulty switching over to Ashton on the occasions when Ashton's works were programmed. They tended to dance Ashton (and the classics, for which Ashton and de Valois had shaped their own company style) in a MacMillanish way, which differed radically from the previous style. Then the RB school abandoned the teaching of the Ceccheti system, on which the Ashton/RB style had been based. The absence of good homegrown choreographers who worked within the company tradition meant the acquisition of the work of choreographers whose style was even further away from what Ashton and de Valois had worked so hard to establish.

It should also be noted that the Royal now hires dancers from all over the world, not just the EU. Alina Cojocaru, Irek Mukhamedov, Inaki Urlezaga, Thiago Soares, Tetsuya Kumakawa, and Robert Marquez are among the dancers from non-EU countries who are dancing or have danced with the company recently.

But I can tell you that the company I see today looks almost nothing like the Royal Ballet I saw for the first time in 1976. The loss of that heritage is a real tragedy.

[Alexandra]

Not a lot of American dancers in the Royal either, one might note. Is there a training crisis in American dance that's just beginning to surface? I've been thinking about this for a few days, remembeing interviews I've done in the past five years with former or current artistic directors, and others associated with American companies, and comments like "they're being trained for competitions," "they can't phrase; it's just step step step" (said by at least a half-dozen people), "they're so young and so eager and they really want to dance, but they just don't have solid training," "when the teachers who are now in their 60s and 70s retire, we're really going to be in trouble," etc. etc. etc. This may be part of both ABT's and the Royal's searching outside.

[Drew]

Hmm...if we thought of the "American" in "American Ballet Theater" as referring to all of the Americas, it would be at least a little more accurate. (Of course, it wouldn't solve the schooling problem.)

[Alexandra]

Good point! I doubt that was the intention originally, though, if the name was coined during the company's tour of South America! It would be an appropriate contemporary interpretation, though.

But I can't believe that ABT is willfully ignoring good American dancers to take in good non-American-born dancers. vrsfanatic mentioned a few dancers who had USA-training, but they had substantial -- and very good -- training in their home countries. there are some excellent academices in Latin America. Gomes also had a year at POB school which, according to an interview in Ballet Alert that Mary Cargill did last year, influenced his dancing considerably.

[Ari]

I think ABT's tendency to hire foreign principals stems in large part from their "buy it, don't develop it" approach towards star-making. If they continue to look outside their own company for ready-made stars, they are going to find mostly non-Americans, except for the odd crossover from across the plaza. This spring, they have imported Roberta Marquez to dance two performances of La Bayadere. I know nothing about Ms. Marquez; she may well be a brilliant and exciting ballerina, but she is not a "name" who is going to sell out the house the way, for instance, Svetlana Zakharova, another spring guest, might. The company could just as easily have given those two Bayaderes to one or two of its own dancers, possibly helping them develop into stars. If they had, the chances would have been greater that at least one of these dancers would have been American.

[Alexandra]

And by bringing in guests to dance instead of developing their own dancers, ABT misses the good will generated by the audience cheering on the home team. To me, a good part of the fun of ballet is watching dancers grow up and into roles. Non-company guests can be exciting and good for the company too -- challenging them, showing new ways of working, all that. But it robs the audience of picking out a corps dancer in their first season and cheering them on up the ranks.