jrhewit

Many believe that good luck will come to a house visited for the first time in the new year by a dark haired 'first-foot' carrying a piece of coal and a bottle of whisky. Often a dark haired guest, already in the house, will have coal and whisky thrust upon them and then be pushed out just before midnight to be welcomed back in just after, but this rigging of the first-foot is disapproved of by purists.

I agree that the ballet is not about a man unable to choose between two women (and that is NOT in the RDB's version.) But it's more than "grass is greener," although some Jameses have used that as an acting motivation. The Sylph is a dream, an Ideal. The ballet is the poster child for Romanticism: a man leaves his comfortable life to follow a dream. When he touches his dream, it dies. I'd echo what Leigh said about being careful not to retrofit ballets. Often we see a production, especially one that's half-baked, and it doesn't make sense to us, and we use logic to figure out what's going on, using present-day glasses. And often what is logical doesn't help! One of the many things I learned from the Danes is to start with what is there and try to figure out why, how it DOES (or did) make sense, and work from there. This is an interesting topic, though, and I'm glad jrhewit raised it (a belated welcome!). There certainly are a lot of dancers in "small roles" who deserve our attention, and in the best of companies in the best of times, all of these "small parts" are done with such care that they make the ballet complete, and turn it from being a star turn into a ballet. Oh Dear - I did not intend to accuse Bournonville of frivolity. I intended simply to draw attention to the difference between the Bournonville/Danish choreography and that of Lacotte/POB. In a direct comparison between these two, The POB version is, in my opinion, correctly serious and 'formal' while the Danish version is rather more frivolous and 'informal'. I base this opinion on three aspects. In judging these I claim no particular 'choreographical' expertise, but I do claim the expertise of being Scottish! First, the dress. In both versions the dress is, of course, tartan. However, in the Danish version the dancers are kitted out messily in a variety of different tartans whereas in the Lacotte version there are only two tartans, red and blue. In Scotland, people dress in individually different tartans for informal activities, whereas the groupwise wearing of uniform tartans indicates joint, clannish, formal occasions. For example, when a girl gets married in Scotland she will probably ask all of the male guests to wear the same tartan - she knows that the photographs of her, in white, flanked by a cohort of uniformly dressed men will look better than if the men's kilts are all different, as if just thrown on. Also, for formal dancing in a group, such as highland or country dancing seen at events such as the Edinburgh Festival Tattoo, the dancers will be in uniform tartan - it just looks a lot better. The place to see the wearing of individual tartans is on the members of the Tartan Army as they lurch hopefully after the Scottish football team. Second, Madge. Madge MUST be a deeply serious character - the entire tragedy of the story stems from her. In the POB version, Madge has immense gravitas and conveys her powerful malice with great conviction - perhaps this is achieved by using a man to portray her. The Danish version, on the other hand, has Madge as a thin shrewish harridan, more intent on wheedling another glass of whisky out of the guests than in subjecting them to supernatural oppression. We can see and hear her any Friday or Saturday night in the centre of Glasgow trying to get a taxi to take her home after another night on 'the bevvie'. Thirdly, Gurn. In the POB version Gurn is portayed as a depressed loser, a nice-enough guy but someone who knows he has no real chance of getting Effie. You feel that when he does get her following James's departure he can't quite believe his luck. In the Danish version, Gurn is played as a chirpy Jack-the-lad who fancies his chances of getting Effie all along. Because of these three differences, the POB version comes across as the unfolding of an inevitable and unstoppable tragedy, while the Danish version seems too light and less substantional (and hence more 'frivolous'). These three differences, to me, give the POB version the

Thank you for that information. I had not realised that Hilarion was an unwelcome suitor for Giselle. I had wondered why there were no early scenes showing Hilarion and Giselle enjoying each other's company; no intimacy; he just skulking around, leaving flowers, spying, like some mediaeval stalker. That all makes sense now. But I still feel he should have confronted/attacked Albrecht.

The role of Hilarion is a difficult one because he is portrayed as such a wimpish character. He is a peasant. He and Giselle are in love and plan to marry. Along comes Albrecht, rich, aristocratic and a liar. He sweeps Giselle off her feet and Hilarion is abandoned. No doubt this kind of thing happens all the time, but the problem lies in Hilarion's supine reaction -- he just lets it happen and seeks revenge in a sneaky underhand way. Perhaps a better story would have Hilarion standing up to Albrecht and confronting him. He would challenge Albrecht to a duel. He would fight powerfully but would lose heroically. Both he and Albrecht would emerge with credit. Seeing Hilarion die for her would provide a far more satisfying explanation for Giselle's madness and death than does Albrecht's deceit on its own. And there would be a more compelling ending too. As it stands, Albrecht ultimately loses Giselle, as perhaps he should. But so does the innocent Hilarion. Better that Albrecht be left with nothing while Hilarion and Giselle are re-united in death.

Most ballet discussions are about established stars and their performances. Nothing strange about that. But often, in watching a performance, either live or on DVD, it becomes obvious that some less established dancer contributes just as much as the principals yet gets far less credit. This seems iniquitous. Two examples come to mind. First, in the DVD of La Sylphide by POB, Melanie Hurel, playing Effie, is just as important as Dupont and Ganio (who are both absolutely superb) but does not even get to appear at the end to take a bow! Why do I say she is 'just as important'? Think of what the ballet is about. It's NOT about a man unable to choose between two women (as the Royal Danish Ballet would have us believe in their frivolous version). It is about the universal fallacy that 'the grass is greener on the other side of the fence'. James wants Effie but he cannot commit to her because of what he would be giving up if he did (symboloised by the Sylphide). Eventually he loses her and of course he also loses what he could never have had anyway, the illusory 'what might have been'. La Sylphide is about the deepest and most profound of quandaries that humans find themselves faced with - to be or not to be. And this faces Hurel with a huge challenge. Dupont can concentrate on being a seductress (beautifully) and Ganio can be the...seductee?...magnificently. But Hurel has to convey the confusion, the hurt, and the desolation of knowing that she is being discarded but not knowing why. Remember - she cannot see the Sylphide, she can only sense James' growing remoteness. This complex emotional role is extremely demanding yet Hurel carries it off perfectly. Her dancing is restrained, as it must be to reflect her sadness and waning confidence, but it is technically impeccable and hauntingly beautiful. This is best seen in the pas de trois where she has to dance with the other two. She has to convey that she is unaware of the physical presence of the Sylphide, though all too aware of her baleful presence. This scene is utterly breathtaking, largely because of Hurel's sensitive and intelligent performance. My second example, also from DVD, can be explained in fewer words. Look at Emmanuel Thibault in Paquita, another brilliant ballet performance from POB. His dancing is out of this world. He manages to give the impression that he is able to suspend himself in mid air. His footwork is lighter and better controlled than any I have seen lately - yet he is (or was, when the DVD was made) still just a 'sujet', and he gets little credit.