Paris Opera Ballet corps

[canbelto]

I recently got several videos featuring the etoiles, danseurs, and corps of the Paris Opera Ballet. And I must say, the Paris Opera Ballet corps is nearly eery in its perfection. All of them seem to have been selected so that theyre similar in height, build, and even appearance. Their absolute unison at all times is almost frightening. They put every other corps to shame.

How do they do it? I'm speechless.

[Cygnet]

I recently got several videos featuring the etoiles, danseurs, and corps of the Paris Opera Ballet. And I must say, the Paris Opera Ballet corps is nearly eery in its perfection. All of them seem to have been selected so that theyre similar in height, build, and even appearance. Their absolute unison at all times is almost frightening. They put every other corps to shame.

How do they do it? I'm speechless.

Do you think that the Paris corps owes its unison to Nureyev's tenure, tradition

or a little of both?

[Alexandra]

From video evidence and the few newspaper/magazine reviews and articles I've read (there isn't that much about this company in English, unfortunately), Nureyev's influence has to count for something, as the corps in the 1970s was not nearly as precise. I've seen an "Etudes" from that period which is quite sloppy.

At a teaching seminar in New York a few summers ago, when asked how to make this correction or that, Claude Bessy would say, "We don't have that problem. We wouldn't accept a dancer with that problem." (This is second hand from a dancer who took the seminar and wrote an article for DanceView; I don't claim this is an exact quote!) They can select exactly the body and proportions they want.

And another thing that struck me when I was in Paris this spring -- ballet was built on the French body. The stewardesses on the plane (all French) looked as though they were ballet dancers. You see "ballet dancers" every time you see a group of school girls on the street. In America, there are so many nationalities and body types, it's more difficult to get a uniform look to a corps. (I would say that as much as I love the French corps, I do think the Kirov's corps is at the top level.)

[carbro]

There may, indeed, be a French body type. My body never fit into French clothes! (It's the hips, you know. :secret: )

The Royal corps had a wonderful unison before the company democratized its standards of physique. When the bodies are close in size and similarly proportioned, the corps has an automatic advantage over a more varied one. But a more varied company is usually a more interesting one. So there are pluses and minuses. We don't know whom we're not seeing because s/he was a half inch too short or had big feet.

[canbelto]

In the La Bayadere, I noticed also how perfectly the Paris corps were spaced across the stage. There was no bunching -- everyone was equally spaced across the stage. This was particularly evident during the Shades scene. Each dancer came down the ramp on cue, every arabesque looked identical, the corps ended up forming perfect lines onstage. It was eery.

The women are about medium height, VERY thin, and no one has longer/shorter arms or a larger head. Their hair even seems to be of the same color -- a chestnut brown.

I must admit that for someone who sees the New York ballet companies primarily, this almost robotic uniformity was comforting. I can only imagine how hard the etoiles have it. Every single corps member looked ready to be etoile.

[Watermill]

It seems ironic that France, the birthplace of ballet, should have so few ballet companies of top quality.

Just wondering: With the transformation of Lyon into a modern/contemporary company, is POB now the only ballet company of note in the entire country? Further wondering: Without competition, do they have an iron grip on the country's top dancers and can shape the company at will, to their will? The recent scandal at the POB school, aligned with your observations, canbelto, gives one another sort of "eerie" feeling.

What about Maillot's Monte Carlo company? Has it drifted, like Lyon, to the contemporary hybrid? Does France enjoy another major company?

A side note: one of the students from OBT has been accepted to POB school. We are watching with great interest.

Watermill

[Alexandra]

Marc Haegeman did an interview with Patrice Bart (the chief balletmaster at the Paris Opera) for DanceView a few issues ago in which they discussed the situation of classical ballet in France, and as I remember it, it's a deliberate plan to centralize ballet in Paris, to have one company that's the absolute best, because classical ballet must be excellent (paraphrasing, of course). I think there may be economic reasons as well. When dance is state supported, modern dance choreographers can, and do, demand to have part of the pie, and this (and the fact that contemporary dance, with its small companies and no need for the horrendous expense of toe shoes) is far cheaper to maintain than classical ballet. Hence the change of many companies from ballet to modern/contemporary. (I hope one of our French posters, who will have a much clearer view of this than I, will comment.)

I think this will come back to haunt them in a decade or two, because it means that most of the country will see only, or predominantly, contemporary dance, which will make classical ballet even more remote, and seem more elitist, than it is now.

Regarding the uniformity of the corps, they still play by old rules there, demanding strict uniformity in corps work and individuality in soloist work (sounds good, but it must be awfully hard to do). I think Carbro made a good point about the Royal's corps -- yes, it was once uniform, too. (And remember Derek Deane's comments a few years ago that so endeared him to his countrymen/women, that he didn't want English dancers because they were all heavy and short and pear shaped?) But the Royal also had fine actors, in small and large parts, and Paris, too, can do dramatic ballets in a variety of styles very convincingly. I think it's all in the balletmastering, company direction.

[canbelto]

Further wondering:  Without competition,  do they have an iron grip on the country's top dancers and can shape the company at will, to their will?  The recent scandal at the POB school, aligned with your observations, canbelto, gives one another sort of "eerie" feeling.

What was the scandal at the POB school? I know they have very strict competitions and the interviews I've seen with the etoiles and former etoiles make me think that as ruthless and demanding as all ballet companies are, the POB takes the cake.

But while I did find the corps impressive in its absolute uniformity and perfection, I did find it eery. I mean, it's nice to see a perfect performance, but my god these ladies look exactly alike. They are the same height, the same build, even their face shape looks similar (heart-shaped). Even their hair is exactly the same. I can just imagine the process of selection -- it must be brutal, and for the girl who's a little taller or arms a little longer or with a slightly squarer head, it must be devastating.

Another thing I noticed was that the etoiles obviously were of the same training as the corps. I do like this. OTOH, you miss the joy of, say, watching Veronika Part/Irina Dvorovenko stride onstage with an arched back and floating arms, while the corps dance in a totally different style.

[Alexandra]

I think they are more dissimilar than they seem. We used to have a postcard up on the main site of the corps in Swan Lake. When you first looked at it, they looked absolutely similar. When you went from swan to swan, each one was quite different -- not only in her person, but in what she was actually doing.

Also, I remember a POB "Swan Lake" performance when, suddenly, in the last act, I noticed that one of the swans was a good eight inches shorter than everyone else. They were lined up, side by side, and it was unmistakable -- yet I hadn't noticed it all evening. The style is what unifies them, and the proportions.

Watermill, there was a lot about the "scandal" on the Paris Opera Ballet forum a year or two ago. I don't remember the details, but it's my impression that it wan't really a scandal, just a lot of complaints that the school was too strict.

[Watermill]

I think, if fading memory serves, Alexandra, this went beyond a difference of opinion over what is "too strict". I think there were some pretty serious charges as parents accused the faculty of physical & mental abuse of students, leading to the resignation (or firing) of some long time top faculty. I believe lawyers were called in and the whole thing faded into behind the scenes settlements. It was huge in the French press but got little coverage here. Scandal or just another day in the studio? Depends on your definitions. I personally regard the abuse of children as scandalous, whether in ballet, gymnastics or little league basketball...but I'm kind of hypersensitive as I often work with the child victims of domestic abuse. Don't really wish to "go there"... Was just wondering if there's a defensive culture of conformity as POB becomes the centralized last bastion of French classical ballet. Probably an overheated generalization from too far a distance.

Watermill

[canbelto]

I wonder if all ballet companies that are specifically based on one schooling are ripe for abuse. For instance I remember reading an interview with Alina Cojacaru where she said she felt like she didnt have a chance at the Marinsky because they prefer taller ballerinas, and we all know about Balanchine's preferences.

[Alexandra]

Eek! I hope ballet schooling and the existence of a company style is not considered abuse! As for POB, look at the difference among principals -- Guerin and Platel, to start. (I know, they were trained at the Conservatoire, not the school, but they werer POB ballerinas) They have very different bodies. At the Maryinsky -- 15 years ago you had Lezhnina (short) and Makhalina (tall) and everything in between. In the current generation, Vishneva and Zakharova are very different. And, as has often been pointed out, Balanchine's princiapls are VERY different -- McBride and Von Aroldingen. Verdy and Farrell. Adams and Kent. The body line and silhouette have changed in every company from decade to decade, and from choreographer/director to choreographer/director; the one steadfast requirement is some identification of style. In companies that have one, of course.

We don't usually have to defend classical ballet style on Ballet Alert!, but since the question has come up -- where are the moans of abusive conformity, unfairness, etc. at basketball, which requires tall players; marathon runners are usually extremely thin and wirey. Sprinters more muscular. Gymnasts have to be flexible, female gymnasts are in trouble if they're much taller than five three, because their feet will scrape the ground on the uneven parallel bars. Et cetera. The one thing that ballet and athletics do have in common is rigor -- both of physical requirements, discipline and training.

[Estelle]

It seems ironic  that France, the birthplace of ballet, should have so few ballet companies of top quality.

Just wondering: With the transformation of Lyon into a modern/contemporary company, is POB now the only ballet company of note in the entire country?  Further wondering:  Without competition,  do they have an iron grip on the country's top dancers and can shape the company at will, to their will?  The recent scandal at the POB school, aligned with your observations, canbelto, gives one another sort of "eerie" feeling.

What about Maillot's Monte Carlo company?  Has it  drifted, like Lyon, to the contemporary hybrid? Does France enjoy another major company?[/b]

Actually, Lyon has been a modern dance company for something like 15 years...

There were some ballet companies which became modern dance companies more recently: the Ballet du Rhin (based in Alsace) and the Ballet de Nancy et de Lorraine. Also the Ballet du Nord, after being directed by a modern dance choreographer (Maryse Delente) for a while, seems to be on the verge of disappearing (because of financial and political problems, it seems), and there also seems to be some serious trouble for the Ballet de Marseille. The Ballet de Monte-Carlo still has ballet-trained dancers, but its repertory includes more and more of Jean-Christophe Maillot's own works (whose style is quite hybrid), and for example he has removed all the Ballets Russes works from the repertory, and most of the new commissions have been to modern dance choreographers (e.g. Lucinda Childs). So I'm not sure it could really be considered as a ballet company now...

The only remaining ballet companies in France are, as far as I know, those of Toulouse (Ballet du Capitole de Toulouse, whose director is Nanette Glushak), Bordeaux (Ballet National de Bordeaux, whose director is Charles Jude) and perhaps Nice (but it's a smaller company and I don't know much about it). However, unlike the POB, none of these has a long tradition of ballet (for example, in the period before Glushak's arrival in Toulouse, it was a small company performing mostly in operas), and so they are heavily dependent on local politics and quite fragile, a change of direction could easily destroy all the repertory.

However, I'm not sure it has much to do with the style of the POB corps de ballet... As it was already said, its uniformity of style is due mostly to the fact that nearly all the dancers come from its own school (and even some dancers who were initially schooled elsewhere, like Platel, Guérin, Lormeau, or more recently Martinez or Pujol, often spent one year in the POB school before joining the company) and so have received the same training. Also there's a question of training by the ballet masters of the company themselves... I'd be interested in hearing from the people who saw the company in the 1960s or 1970s (Alymer ?) , was the corps de ballet as uniform back then ?

The dancers of the company aren't so similar physically indeed (for example, there's quite a lot of differences between, say, Marie-Agnès Gillot and Clairemarie Osta), I think the feeling of similarity comes from the similarity in style.

Alexandra wrote:

Marc Haegeman did an interview with Patrice Bart (the chief balletmaster at the Paris Opera) for DanceView a few issues ago in which they discussed the situation of classical ballet in France, and as I remember it, it's a deliberate plan to centralize ballet in Paris, to have one company that's the absolute best, because classical ballet must be excellent (paraphrasing, of course). I think there may be economic reasons as well.

Actually I'm not very convinced about Bart's explanation about a "deliberate plan"... It seems to me to be a typical "Parisianist" idea, i.e. the way some Parisians think that France is equal to Paris, and the rest of the country doesn't matter. France is indeed a very centralized country (even though it has become a bit less centralized in the last two decades), with most of the political, economic and cultural institutions in Paris, and many of the decisions are made in Paris by some people who don't care much about the artistic life in other cities (and also most of the press is centralized in Paris), so for example the changes of other ballet companies didn't interest much the people of the Ministery of Culture, or the press... But the reasons for the changes were mostly, as Alexandra said, economic (contemporary companies cost less)- and perhaps also, to some extent, political (some lobbying of modern dance people complaining that they didn't have enough money).

I think this will come back to haunt them in a decade or two, because it means that most of the country will see only, or predominantly, contemporary dance, which will make classical ballet even more remote, and seem more elitist, than it is now.

Oh, yes indeed ! Now there is almost no opportunity to see some ballet in most French cities (and I'd say, given this year's POB repertory, no that much in Paris either )

[Watermill]

Thanks, Estelle, for that survey of the ballet scene du Paris. I think you and Alexandra are probably right: it's a mixture of cultural, political and economic reasons. The result can not have French ballet fans cheering.

Alexandra: I don't think there's a need to defend ballet style. I certainly agree that all the physical endeavors you mentioned each have their own set of requirements. And I become quickly annoyed at those students (and especially parents) who use the "unfair" complaint for endeavors that are based on meritocracy not democracy. But I think this POB School situation was pretty serious and don't think it was a matter of parents mistaking the difference between disciplined conformity and abuse. I suppose I could try to find more info...but would just as soon let it go. I trust that POB is now much more sensitive to these things.

[Alexandra]

Thanks for that, Estelle. I thought the notion of centralizing ballet in one company, of making that one company set the standard for excellent (and that that one company is located in Paris) could be seen as Paris-centric, too, but the Parisian answer to that might be, we are at the top exactly because excellence is located here. And then one gets into a question of whether the best is drawn to one center, and the art grows from that yeast, or whether the center sets up the insititutional framework to force that condition. And I wouldn't want to try to answer that one!

Watermill, my comment was really an attempt to answer canbelto's question: "I wonder if all ballet companies that are specifically based on one schooling are ripe for abuse." (which is a perfectly legitimate question, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It's often asked.)

[canbelto]

I'm not accusing the ballet community of abuse, and I suppose this is a sticky topic, but I do wonder (in a healthy way) where the line is drawn between saying "You have to look like this" and constructing a uniform, perfect corps. In basketball, for instance, it's a myth that it's all tall guys. Centers need to be tall, but as a rule point guards do not. For instance, some of the greatest point guards (Isiah Thomas, Allen Iverson, John Stockton) have been barely six-feet.

I love looking at the POB corps, and their uniformity and perfection is awe-inspiring. I'm just wondering if it's healthy, as a rule, to shape their ballet company according to such strict rules of appearance.

About the abuse, my thinking is that every sport, every field, has its share of abuse. It happens. From the Romanian gymnastics camp (there were big scandals in the Romanian press about this) to the longtime complaints about Bobby Knight (college basketball coach), I think when you have an extremely competitive field where perfection is the goal abuse is bound to happen.

[Watermill]

Apologies, Alexandra: I didn't get that. My hyper-sensitivities are showing!

Not to go astray with this thread... you are right, canbelto: whether in the gym, stadium or studio, the pursuit of perfection is bound to lead occasionally down some dark tunnels. However: the abuse, when it happens, must be addressed.

[canbelto]

Watermill, I'm not in any way condoning abuse, and I think we all know when the line is crossed between being "demanding" and abuse. But I'm just saying that in any very competitive, perfectionist field, there's bound to be people who dont know when to step off, who get power trips, who simply can't understand hurtful, rude, damaging behavior. Alfred Hitchcock, for example, was notorious for his treatment of actors.

All I'm saying is that very often a fixation on one particular "look" or "image" leads to trouble. And htis is in no way specific to ballet. The supermodeling world, for instance, has even more demanding standards of appearance. And I've seen ballet corps before, but I've never seen any corps that looked as similar, woman to woman, as the POB.

[Estelle]

Alexandra wrote:

but the Parisian answer to that might be, we are at the top exactly because excellence is located here. And then one gets into a question of whether the best is drawn to one center, and the art grows from that yeast, or whether the center sets up the insititutional framework to force that condition. And I wouldn't want to try to answer that one!

Well, I don't believe in the "excellence is located here" argument (all the more as for example, the POB school students now come from all French cities). I guess it's mostly the result of historical conditions: the POB was created by Louis XIV during the period of absolute monarchy, which also was a period of extreme centralism in France, and it has evolved from there. I think no other city would have had enough money and power to create a similar institution wihout support from the state, and the state never cared to create another company. Well, there probably are also some demographic arguments (Paris is the biggest French city, and so has a larger audience), but for example in Germany, which is a far less centralized country than France (it was unified far more recently and its political structure is federal), there is a far larger number of ballet companies (even though that number is decreasing, mostly because of financial problems, as they get less public support) and not really one far above the others. I don't think there could have been another French company as big and with as large a repertory as the POB, but it's sad to see that there wasn't even an attempt to develop other decent ballet companies in other French cities (and also that the POB, which is financed by the whole country's taxes, tours so little in other cities-not everybody can afford to go to Paris).

About last year's scandals: well, the press hasn't talked about it in a while, and I guess that the fact that Claude Bessy retired probably calmed a lot of things. I think that it was more than just a matter of discipline and rigor, quite a lot of things seemed a bit abusive (and especially the lack of medical and nutritional advice for the students- there seems to have been some improvements from that point of view- and also a somewhat nasty atmosphere- Aurélie Dupont, who can't exactly be accused to speak out of bitterness, talked about it in several interviews). However, Watermill, I have never heard of "resignation (or firing) of some long time top faculty": you might be confusing several things, as Christiane Vlassi (former POB principal, and teacher) had to resign a bit abruptly (perhaps there was a question of age limit, but I'm nor sure) and was not in good terms with Claude Bessy after that, but as far as I know it was not linked to the "abuse" scandal. Some things I find a bit worrying about the way the school works, are the fact that the students are so exclusively focused on getting into the POB that some of them completely stop dancing if they don't get into it (not even trying to join another company- what a waste!), and also that its atmosphere might exclude people who are too sensitive or independant-minded and that might be one explanation for the lack of choreographers coming from the school.

[cygneblanc]

In order to be accepted in the POB school, you have to fit into the following criterias of both height and weight. If you don't, they won't watch you dancing. Since most of the dancers from the compagny are coming from the school, uniformity is there. If during one year, you don't fit anymore into the criterias,you're turned away from the school.

The criterias are

Girls and then boys by age

(--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8 :min. 1m32 - 22 kg

max. 1m35 - 25 kg

8 : n. 1m34 - 25 kg

max. 28 kg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 :min. 1m35 - 25 kg

max. 1m38 - 27 kg

9 :min. 1m38 - 28 kg

max. 31 kg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10:min. 1m38 - 27 kg

max. 1m42 - 29 kg

10 :min. 1m40 - 31 kg

max. 37 kg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 :min. 1m42 - 29 kg

max. 1m50 - 34 kg

11 :min. 1m45 - 37 kg

max. 40 kg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 :min. 1m50 - 40 kg

max. 42 kg (just boys, girls can't enter after 11).

These criterias are on the POB Website

[Herman Stevens]

I think there may be economic reasons as well.  When dance is state supported, modern dance choreographers can, and do, demand to have part of the pie, and this (and the fact that contemporary dance, with its small companies and no need for the horrendous expense of toe shoes) is far cheaper to maintain than classical ballet.  Hence the change of many companies from ballet to modern/contemporary.

I think this will come back to haunt them in a decade or two, because it means that most of the country will see only, or predominantly, contemporary dance, which will make classical ballet even more remote, and seem more elitist, than it is now.

Looking for excellence is of course a laudable thing, but the risk of this strategy of concentrating all the talent in one classical ballet company in the entire country is that the public will get no exposure to classical ballet, except for those one or two times in their lives they go to see Swan Lake or Beauty like a sort of tourist thing, and they get to consider classical ballet, point shoes, tutus the whole nine yards as a silly kitsch thing - while contemporary dance is about expressing real feelings etc. Ergo you will lose all kind of support and make yourself extremely vulnerable to political pressure to get with the program and start rolling on the floor with some video projections on the back wall.

I think ballet culture will be much safer if there are starters' companies in the nation's perifery too, where you don't get to see the best of the best, perhaps, but you can at least take your kids (not that I have any) to the ballet on a regular basis, see what it's like and have some fun. I don't think you want to take your eight years old to a Pina Bausch sort of thing anyway.

I remember I took a friend to see Sleeping Beauty a while ago. She'd been to lots of opera and modern dance. And as a consequence she literally was in shock the first five minutes. It wasn't updated! The dancers were totally serious!

[Alexandra]

Herman, I agree -- ballet was much more popular in the U.S. when ABT and the Ballet Russe and Ruth Page did coast to coast tours, hitting not just the major cities, but really small towns, where the only "theater" was a high school auditorium. There are dozens of dancers who first discovered ballet this way, but fans, too.

Contemporary dance is so much more accessible -- an irony, since modern dance was "the intellectual" art when it started, or at least, that was certainly a goal of the Founding Mothers. But the American brand of it -- rock music, "high energy", no stars, just young people dancing, nothing threatening about it -- makes ballet seem inaccessible: there must be rules that I don't understand, why are they doing this?, why is everyone bowing to her, etc.

There's a down side to everything, of course, and there are times I wonder if I'd been drawn to ballet if my first experience had been a small company's attempt at "Swan Lake" or "Sleeping Beauty". And I also think you can make a case for a nation saying, "This is our best. This is what we want to send abroad, to represent us." (not that Paris Opera tours much) But on balance, I think it's dangerous to put all, or nearly all, of your eggs in one basket, in this case.

[Estelle]

Alexandra wrote:

"Contemporary dance is so much more accessible."

Actually, I find much of it not so "accessible", and often just boring or impossible to "understand" (but perhaps it's a characteristic of some French modern dance choreographers: music which is a mixture of noises and texts, dark lights, little movement, no characters, no plot...), and a lot of modern dance companies depend a lot on state support and don't fill much the theaters. But indeed there's a problem of people never getting any opportunity to see some ballet, and often their idea of ballet is just Dolly Dinkle's school annual gala, which they were forced to attend once to see little cousin Susie, and which didn't exactly give them a positive idea of ballet...

Well, I realize that my exposure to ballet when I was a kid and teen ager in Grenoble was about zero (my parents had attended some ballet performances in Paris before I was born, but there wasn't any to see in Grenoble, and we didn't have any ballet videos), but I still managed to get interested in it when I was 17, thanks to one book I had been offered several years before ("Beauté de la danse", an anthology prefaced by Gilberte Cournand) and one TV program about Nijinsky. So sometimes one just needs a little spark However, now there is even less ballet to see on TV, and I wouldn't have seen much ballet if I hadn't lived in Paris for a few years.

[canbelto]

Taking this topic in a totally new direction, does anyone find a lot of similarities between Gillian Murphy and the POB etoiles? I wonder if Murphy was trained by a POB teacher. It was one thing that jumped out at me -- their crisp, clean, athletic, "no-frills" style, their expert turning. Murphy has the same style of dancing.

[Dale]

The bulk of Murphy's training came in the United States - in South Carolina as a member of the Columbia City Ballet and then at the North Carolina School of the Arts. I usually think of her dancing as bearing the mark of her teacher at NCSA - Melissa Hayden - who tutored her in several Balanchine roles.