Dramatic Realism -- good or bad?

[Alexandra]

Ismene Brown has a particularly interesting review of the Royal Ballet's "La Bayadere" in today's Telegraph:

Excising the exotic

She makes several general points worth talking about. Ari highlighted one of them on Links -- that the three principals (Rojo, Acosta, Nunez) dance in a different style than the corps. And another one, that's long been of concern to me, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to disuss it

When 24 ghostly tutu'd apparitions come swaying down the Himalayas in Solor's drugged dream, we should see, through his befuddled and guilty eyes, 24 replications of the girl he allowed to be murdered. But these prim Shades could not have been refractions of Rojo's burningly warm live Nikiya or the majestic, glinting creature she became after death.

The problem is with the "dramatic realism" that has become a byword for Royal Ballet theatrical style. The 1877, La Bayadère, with its purple story of a lowly Indian temple-dancer and her love for a heroic warrior who is affianced to his royal boss's daughter, is as overwrought as any Italian opera. Stir too much realism into this and it curdles.

She points to the production as much as to the dancing/coaching:

But part of this trouble is Natalia Makarova's 1989 production, in which she attempted to reinvent the "lost" fourth act, with its apocalyptic climax. The Kirov's new historic restoration, which they showed in London last summer, shows up the inferiority of this guess. Eye-wateringly grand style is what La Bayadère needs, rather than hectic naturalism, and unless the company can provide that, it will not be seen at its best with this ballet.

I think that realism is inappropriate to classical ballet, and have seen, both at the Royal (the little I've had the opportunity to watch it) and at ABT a use of dramatic realism in classical and neoclassical work. My guess is that it comes from MacMillan ballets, in which dramatic realism is appropriate. But what works for one style -- does Juliet gag when she swallows the sleeping potient? -- doesn't work for another (Aurora shouldn't act as though she's been stung by a scorpion when pricked by the spindle, and Titania shouldn't have an orgasm at the crest of a lift in Ashton's "The Dream," as I saw happen in one RB performance.)

Does anyone else have any observations or comments?

[Mel Johnson]

Well, Odette as Blanche DuBois, or Albrecht as Willy Loman certainly wouldn't work very well. Now, GISELLE as Blanche, I don't know....

[Watermill]

Tell me about it! I find Dramatic Realism quite jarring in Classical Ballet. Aren't we saturated enough with the tics and talks of TV and movie acting? One of the refreshing aspects of the ballet classic is its poetic distance from reality, where a pirouette means "I'm happy" or an upraised arm with the proper mask (notice I did not say "expression") represents "My God, what have I done!?" In the theatre realism often wrecks Shakespeare. But even in the grittiest film realism quickly becomes deadly boring without a crackling script and strong director's vision.

Here's something that bothers me in Classical Ballet: "Realistic" treatment of crowd scenes. Example: in ABT Le Corsaire, the supers and corps are left to react realistically at the bazaar. Why does it seem so false? Now watch the Kirov or Bolshoi and observe the formal gestures of the background crowds, how they are placed and paced. One's eye is not drawn from the intended focus of the ballet by sudden random movements or twitterings from the chorus. The background is choreographed as part of the dance.....because it is

What a concept, huh?

Poetic Realism is another thing altogether and can work beautifully, using modes or even fragments of human expression to weave an impression upon the audience. (In the theatre: Early Tennessee Williams is the prime example) La Sonnambula is a favorite of mine for this reason. As is much of De Mille and the little de valois and Ashton I've seen.

Watermill

[Hans]

That's a very good point, Watermill. Choreography for crowds is very important, as anyone who has seen a boring "party scene" in the Nutcracker knows.

[Andrei]

I don't see anything wrong with dramatic realism or, as we call it in Russia, social realism on the ballet stage. Only one has to remember that he is ballet dancer and he should apply and support his acting abilities by choreography. Movements direct your emotions, not vice versa. The style and epoch you are dancing in commands your behaviour, you can't break the line or do unproper gestures. Every role has emotional limits, if you burst out too loud, nobody believes you, if you make it too soft nobody hears you. The same are differences of acting in corps de ballet and in principle roles. Everybody should know their places.

Of course, it has to be taught on acting classes in ballet schools, first, how to walk, to sit, to fall, to run, later - conditional gestures and only after this you should apply your emotions.

[Watermill]

Excellent points, Andrei. I think when you wrote

Movements direct your emotions, not vice versa. The style and epoch you are dancing in commands your behaviour, you can't break the line or do unproper gestures.

you very nicely defined what is wrong when "realistic" acting intrudes upon classical ballet.

Watermill

[diane]

Thanks for bringing this up.

I think that also the dance-theater works of the past twenty, thirty years or so helped bring this type of realism to ballet, as well.

To many people who are used to seeing theater or television and films, the "masks" (well- put) of classical ballet appear totally false and even silly.

But, they have a reason for being that way.

The example of the crowd scenes is a good one! I have also noticed that. -sigh-

Often a choreographer / dancer or director (of a play, for example) will not truly trust the story/text/ theme, and try to add more "real (re)actions".

As has been pointed out, it too often backfires.

Ah, yes: Movement directs your emotions.

I agree.

It is counter to what many actors seem to believe, however.

We (my husband -actor- and I) have these discussions a lot.

It is hard for him to understand ballet dancers in the classics.

They appear - to him - false and superficial.

-d-

[Alexandra]

There's certainly a knack to being NOT false and superficial in the classics. One of the Danish dancers (Erling Eliasson, one of their finest mimes) mimed an example of this for me. I'd asked him (as I had everyone) for examples of Kronstam's coaching, and he gave me this one. It was in a rehearsal for "A Folk Tale." Eliasson was Junker Ove. In the last scene, Ove and Hilda are married. Eliasson mimed how he had stood and looked at her -- and it was what you would recognize as Ballet Prince behavior, a stance and look would be acceptable for a Siegfried or Florimund anywhere today.

Kronstam came to him and said, "No, no one will believe that you love her" and (as mimed by Eliasson) gave him an immediate, direct, extremely warm and loving Prince -- without changing the demeanor or making it too realistic, just making it ALIVE and individual. The Before and After was astounding and it was an example of how to make the Cardboard Prince into flesh.

To Andrei's point above -- HELLO ANDRE!!!! Glad to read you again -- it made me think of the very different approaches to the 19th century ballets in Russia and in England (and, sort of, America). The Royal looked at those ballets as Petipa (Petipa/Ivanov) ballets, a text, and presented it, with amendments suited to their style and approach to classicism, but always a derivation of the text, and part of that text was a certain way of acting. The Kirov has treated the ballet as a score and an idea, to be realized differently by each generation and each choreographer. That can accommodate a different style of acting.

Mixing the two -- putting Kirov acting into the Royal's tradition, or vice versa, makes for a muddle.

[sandik]

I like the distinction that Alexandra draws here

"The Royal looked at those ballets as Petipa (Petipa/Ivanov) ballets, a text, and presented it, with amendments suited to their style and approach to classicism, but always a derivation of the text, and part of that text was a certain way of acting. The Kirov has treated the ballet as a score and an idea, to be realized differently by each generation and each choreographer. That can accommodate a different style of acting."

(sorry -- I haven't taught myself how to use the quotation function at this site yet...)

Just in terms of personal taste, I come down somewhere in the middle. I've seen productions of 19th c ballets that have incorporated big chunks of more "realistic" staging and have found it compelling dramatically. I've also seen productions that were much more formed, in terms of the dramatic component, that have been very evocative.

In the video "Portrait of Giselle" is a clip of Markova in Giselle, in the mad scene (I think this is with an early manifestation of what is now the Royal B ). Markova's performance is an excellent example of a more formed or choreographed interpretation, but it is the corps work that I find fascinating -- it is clearly designed, not improvised, and is almost expressionist rather than personal. The women in the background represent a community and an attitude, but they certainly don't look like autonomous individuals. (it reminds me a bit of the movement choirs of Rudolph Laban)

[tangentially, I find this even more interesting since I understand that Markova had a complicated inner monologue she followed while performing this role)

In another part of the "Portrait" video is another mad scene clip, this on of Carla Fracci with (possibly, I'm not sure) ABT. Her Giselle is a real peasant girl, and as she loses her grip on the world, she becomes clumsy and awkward -- she trips and lurches, she spasms and cringes as she realizes she's been betrayed. The supporting cast is equally vivid, almost cinematic in their reactions to the situation as it unfolds, and it is very compelling.

I think either approach is just fine, if the choreographer/stager is aware that there are choices to be made and if they make those decisions thoughtfully, understanding the ramifications and willing to follow through with the style.

[sandik]

My apologies -- I don't know where that smiley in shades came from in my posting. It's supposed to be "Ballet," which I'm sure everyone has already figured out...

[Alexandra]

Sandi, I fixed your post. You had Royal B -- immediately followed by a ) and then a . Unfortunately, this turns into a smile with shades B + ) + . or : = B).

Re quoting -- find the post you want to quote, even if it's ten posts up, and click the quote button (all the way over on the right). That will give you a message box, just like the usual one, with the quotation in a second box below the box in which you write. You can edit -- delete material that you don't want to quote (hopefully not change the quote!) -- and then write your message, and the quoted material will appear in your message.

And now to something more interesting..what you wrote above. I'll have to rewatch that video. I remember the Fracci/ABT one vividly (and agree with what you wrote, and loved your point about the clumsiness) and the Markova one less so, but my vague memory of the corps is that it's in the same mode as the ABT one -- that each person is acting as an individual and, as a friend once put it, "is in the ballet." I had thought that's because each company, at the time, was closer to the Ballet Russe tradition, that kind of realistic acting.

Then I realized we should define "expressionistic" and "realistic". They're different, yet both removed from the old-style declamatory mime.

[sandik]

Then I realized we should define "expressionistic" and "realistic".  They're different, yet both removed from the old-style declamatory mime.

Ok, I'm trying the quote thing.

I agree about needing to be clearer. On one level, all movement is expressive. Period.

But for me, there is a difference between work that is somehow intended to appear "natural" on stage, and work that is more shaped or abstracted, where emotion is refined to an iconic place.

It's a bit like comparing the Fracci mad scene with Graham's "Lamentation" -- they are both, on some level, about grief, but express it in very different ways.

When I teach dance history, I often talk about the affinity between Fokine's and Stanislavsky's work. I think of Fokine, and other artists who work in a similar way, as approaching a kind of cinema verite.

On the other hand, Tudor, whose work is extremely expressive, has abstracted and refined behavior so that certain key gestures and postures tell us all about these characters and their world.

These are both dramatic, they both refer to real life, but they are neither of them actually real.

[BryanM]

I believe that the classical ballet can be considered in its original cultural context, which at the time may have had some jarring or realistic aspects; therefore updating a classical piece to engage a modern audience -- in the same way that the original was meant to connect to its audience -- make sense to me. Yet often it is best if only some elements are updated or made to be "realistic". The key here is reflection on how modern audience require adjusted style for the same, orinigally intended impact.