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

Roland Petit


Recommended Posts

I'm just wondering... There is so little (is there any?) Roland Petit in American ballet companies' repetoire. Anyone know why not? A decade or so ago, Pennsylvania Ballet was interested in obtaining some of his work, but apparently their interest came to naught. Do many companies outside of his own perform his work? I recently saw a video of Baryshnikov in Petit's Carmen and would like to see more... Am I allowed to ask this question, or is it too much a matter for conjecture?

Roland Petit entry in Wikipedia

Estelle Souche's page on Roland Petit mentions that he has left (retired?) direction of Ballet National de Marseille.... and notes several of his ballets in the Paris Opera repetoire.

ABT has notes on Roland Petit in their website, but do they currently have any rights to perform his work?

It seems he should be enjoying his golden years of celebrity right now... with lots of companies doing his work. What's up?

Link to comment

I'd like to know myself. San Francisco Ballet staged "L'Arlésienne" around 2001(?), but that's the exception rather than the norm.

Petit isn't the only European choreographer whose work gets little respect in the English-speaking world. We've been taught to revere formalism rather than theatricality. I think the Petit last brought his company to the United States in about 1990. Between touring becoming too expensive and very little decent performing arts programming on television, is it any wonder he's fallen out of the American consciousness?

The Ballet National de Marseille may not be performing his ballets anymore, but on the upside the Paris Opera Ballet seems determined to pick up the slack. It's adding his "Proust" to its repertoire this year and I suspect other Petit ballets will be staged in the future. Many of his ballets are large scale, so certainly not every American company could mount them. And pardon me if this sounds harsh, but few American dancers are really convincing actors, which would also present a problem.

Link to comment
Petit isn't the only European choreographer whose work gets little respect in the English-speaking world. We've been taught to revere formalism rather than theatricality.

I agree. The Bolshoi danced his Pique Dame in London earlier this year and most of the UK critics trashed it even though it went down well with audiences. Clement Crisp appears to be a fan of his though and his works are much admired by those British fans that go across to Paris to see POB on a regular basis. I recommend the DVD of Clavigo, perhaps the most flamboyantly theatrical of all his ballets.

Link to comment

It's sad about the cost factors. I guess Petipa charges less. :blink:

I recall loving Carmen's theatricality. I was alternately intrigued and bored by Jeune Homme et la Mort, but found Cyrano and Notre Dame de Paris overly pageant-like in their fidelity to the long, long original sources. I can't speak for the choreographic vocabulary, but much of what I've seen seems both interesting and emotionally effective.

Do you all thing that an audience exists in the US -- or could be cultivated -- for these works? Which companies -- which audiences -- -- and which works -- might be most suited to it?

Incidentally, the following is one of the most succinct and thought provoking comments I've seen in a long while. Thanks, volcano hunter!

Petit isn't the only European choreographer whose work gets little respect in the English-speaking world. We've been taught to revere formalism rather than theatricality.
Link to comment
Petit isn't the only European choreographer whose work gets little respect in the English-speaking world. We've been taught to revere formalism rather than theatricality.

Must it be an either/or? There are works that are theatrically interesting that are also well-made. :blink: (I realize that there are many who think that a formalist masterpiece is enough theater already, and that there are those who are happy with something "theatrical" -- people dressed as devil/angels swinging onto the stage on ropes, dropping down on motorcycles and jumping through flames, say -- that has no formal content.)

I've always admired "Carmen." I think it is both theatrical and well-made. I loved his "Les Rendez-vous," which POB brought here about 15 years ago. I thought "Proust" was interesting, as was "Jeune Homme" and "L'Arlsienne." I think American companies would be hard-pressed to put over "L'Arlsienne," because there's so much filler. You have to believe in it to put it across.

BUT when he is bad, he is BAD. "Chaplin" looked like a revue slapped together for a cruise ship. "Ma Pavlova" was just plain silly.

Why isn't he done? More than money or taste, I think the problem is that NOTHING between Petipa and last Thursday in America (except for Balanchine at NYCB) is performed today. Where's DeMille, Robbins, Tudor? How about Fokine and Massine? We're equal opportunity discarders.

Link to comment

I agree, alexandra, about the unnevenness of Petit's work. It's a large body of work, done over a long period of time, and remarkably (it seems to me) reflective of changes in cultural tastes and values -- sometimes too much so. Is there a unifying Petit-ian aesthetic? If so, what is it?)

Alexandra raises another great point, which has more to do with the nature of the American cultural marketplace than Petit specifically.

Why isn't he done? More than money or taste, I think the problem is that NOTHING between Petipa and last Thursday in America (except for Balanchine at NYCB). Where's DeMille, Robbins, Tudor? How about Fokine and Massine? We're equal opportunity discarders.
There's much here to think about. What do you think?
Link to comment

Re a Petit aesthetic -- I think it's more a theatrical than a formal one :blink: His favorite theme -- the young man and death -- done in a dozen different ways has most often yielded his best work, I think. There are signature steps, of course, but while you can identify an Ashton or a Balanchine work from a photo, even if the work is unfamiliar to you, I'm not sure I could do that with Petit. There are signature steps, of course, especially quick footwork, and, for women, the long leg used as a sword (which was Zizi's signature).

I showed "Carmen" to a class this week, so just had a chance to look at it again, and, although this work is often dismissed, I can make a good case for it :) What I especially admired this time was how NEW everything in that piece would have been in 1949, not only the singing, and the dancing with chairs on your head, and the smoking on stage, and the use of the pas de deux as a rather literal metaphor for sex, but how he made everything (including character steps) look like classical ballet. To me, that's how you expand the vocabulary, and it's what I'm missing in today's work.

Re the state of repertory (and I added the phrase "is performed today" to my original post to make it make sense!) I've asked a few directors about this, and often the response is, "Who would stage it?" I wonder if there would be audience interest, or at least curiosity about, the Disappeared Ballets?

Link to comment
Re the state of repertory (and I added the phrase "is performed today" to my original post to make it make sense!) I've asked a few directors about this, and often the response is, "Who would stage it?" I wonder if there would be audience interest, or at least curiosity about, the Disappeared Ballets?
At this point, people are desperate enough for new Balanchine works to try to find anyone who has the slightest memory of a short passage of Lost Balanchine, particularly from the Ballet Russe eras. The same people danced Fokine and Massine.

I would love to see A Month in the Country and Pillar of Fire, for example, and not have to travel to NYC or London to do so. And that's just scraping the surface.

Link to comment
I've always admired "Carmen." I think it is both theatrical and well-made. I loved his "Les Rendez-vous," which POB brought here about 15 years ago. I thought "Proust" was interesting, as was "Jeune Homme" and "L'Arlésienne." I think American companies would be hard-pressed to put over "L'Arlsienne," because there's so much filler. You have to believe in it to put it across.

So far, I've been more interested in Petit's oldest works (from the 1940s-50s: "Les Forains", "Le rendez-vous", "Le jeune homme et la mort", "Carmen"- and I really regret not having had opportunities to see "Le Loup") than his more recent ones... Perhaps part of it is due to all the collaborations with various artists that Petit had in his youth (he was lucky to have a Kochno to help him...) I wonder what his "Proust" will look like at the Paris Opera, I don't think it has been danced in quite a long while...

The relationship between Petit and the POB has always sounded quite complicated (Petit doesn't have the reputation to have an easy temper, and the complicated POB administration probably doesn't help), a bit like Béjart (by the way, both were part of a temporary project of POB direction around 1968, but I think it never materialized, it was in a very troubled period). There were moments when almost none of his works were in the POB's repertory, but now the relationship seems to be better and there have been many Petit programs in recent years. Also there are some POB dancers that he likes a lot, for example Nicolas Le Riche who has been cast in many of this works and for whom he created "Clavigo".

Now the Ballet de Marseille has turned into a mostly modern dance company (yet another one :blink: ) and has no works by Petit in its repertory (what a pity, after he spent to many years in Marseille... But the reasons for his rather sudden departure never were known clearly), actually I think the only French company performing it is the POB.

Why isn't he done? More than money or taste, I think the problem is that NOTHING between Petipa and last Thursday in America (except for Balanchine at NYCB) is performed today. Where's DeMille, Robbins, Tudor? How about Fokine and Massine? We're equal opportunity discarders.

Well, the same could be said of most French companies (for example I doubt the Lyon Opera Ballet performs anything dating from before 1980), and even of much of the content of POB seasons in last years (Petit being one of the only exceptions), with a more and more visible preference for the "last Thursday" category...

Link to comment
He's expensive!

Mr. Joffrey, who danced with the Petit company when it toured the US, wanted some of his work, but it was way outside the budget, and could only be worse now.

Karen Kain worked with Petit frequently in the 1970s and could be inclined to acquire his works for the National Ballet of Canada, but if the cost is prohibitive, that would rule out the possibility and leave the POB as one of the few companies with a budget big enough to accommodate him. Petit made "Kraanerg" for the NBoC in 1969 and the company acquired "Le Loup" the following season, but as near as I can tell, it hasn't performed any Petit since.

As for the gap between Petipa and Last Thursday, the NBoC is also a terrible offender against Antony Tudor. Early in its history the company acquired "Lilac Garden," "Gala Performance," "Offenbach in the Underworld" (premiere of the second version) and "Dark Elegies" thanks to the longstanding relationship between Tudor and Celia Franca, who'd begun her career with Ballet Rambert. In the 1960s it added "The Judgment of Paris," in the 1970s - "Fandango," and some of these ballets were revived periodically in the '70s and '80s, but since acquiring "The Leaves Are Fading" in the early '90s, I don't think it's performed any of his ballets.

Balanchine seems to be the just about the only choreographer whose currency increased following his death and/or retirement. Since the Ballet National de Marseille isn't going to perpetuate Petit's legacy, he should consider making his ballets more accessible to companies rather than risk their eventual extinction.

Link to comment
Balanchine seems to be the just about the only choreographer whose currency increased following his death and/or retirement. Since the Ballet National de Marseille isn't going to perpetuate Petit's legacy, he should consider making his ballets more accessible to companies rather than risk their eventual extinction.

Oh, this is true of so many choreographers (and their estates) -- not just Petit!

Link to comment
As for the gap between Petipa and Last Thursday, the NBoC is also a terrible offender against Antony Tudor. Early in its history the company acquired "Lilac Garden," "Gala Performance," "Offenbach in the Underworld" (premiere of the second version) and "Dark Elegies" thanks to the longstanding relationship between Tudor and Celia Franca, who'd begun her career with Ballet Rambert. In the 1960s it added "The Judgment of Paris," in the 1970s - "Fandango," and some of these ballets were revived periodically in the '70s and '80s, but since acquiring "The Leaves Are Fading" in the early '90s, I don't think it's performed any of his ballets.

Balanchine seems to be the just about the only choreographer whose currency increased following his death and/or retirement. Since the Ballet National de Marseille isn't going to perpetuate Petit's legacy, he should consider making his ballets more accessible to companies rather than risk their eventual extinction.

Well, I certainly wouldn't say that Tudor's legacy has increased, not like Blanchine's, as volcanohunter rightly points out, but at least Tudor gets some periodic showings at ABT. His work is certainly not something that dominates their rep, but it does pop up from time to time.

Also , although I don't follow the Royal Ballet's rep all that closely, I think they were programming Lilac Garden off and on .

Richard

Link to comment

I think Balanchine, and later the Balanchine Trust, was very generous about allowing companies to perform his work... and it pays off... look how many companies perform it and how healthy his legacy is as a result. Tharp was at one time very very expensive (perhaps she still is?) and outside of ABT & Hubbard Street, few did her work...but now suddenly it seems everyone is doing it... Did I read somewhere that her son is working to seed her work in more companies? Baryshnikov merited high respect when his project for NIPAD (National Iniative to Preserve American Dance) was to perform the Judson work around the country in the theory that if one really wants to preserve an oeuvre, the best way is to perform it and keep it live in the dance world's consciousness.

I do wish Petit would foster more performances of his work or that the French government would underwrite some of the costs for international companies to acquire it.

I don't hold a few bombs against him... as long as he's made some gems as well.

Link to comment
Well, I certainly wouldn't say that Tudor's legacy has increased, not like Blanchine's, as volcanohunter rightly points out, but at least Tudor gets some periodic showings at ABT. His work is certainly not something that dominates their rep, but it does pop up from time to time.

Thank heavens that ABT recognizes Tudor as an indispensable part of its heritage by reviving his ballets periodically. Perhaps it's a good thing that he choreographed relatively few of them as this makes it easier to keep the majority of them in circulation. It's also a great and wonderful thing that the Royal Ballet respects its Ashton heritage and that the POB makes efforts to preserve the legacy of French choreography. But as Helene has already pointed out, it would be nice if the ballets of Tudor, Ashton, Petit et al. were accessible to audiences beyond New York, London and Paris.

Video recordings are a useful stopgap measure, and I'm grateful that TDK is about to release its fourth DVD of Petit ballets. Sadly, the BBC seems to be in less of a hurry to put Ashton to disc. But as for Tudor, there isn't much to be had at present :D For that matter, Balanchine's presence on video ought to be a whole lot greater given the scale of his output.

Link to comment

I am a big fan of Roland Petit. There is a liveliness and sexuality to his ballets. They look like they are fun to dance. I am also a fan of his choreography for films. Leslie Caron has always been a favorite dancer of mine.

I miss seeing Tudor and DeMille. I loved Balanchine in the seventies, but I am tired of seeing his choreography. I think it has become over-exposed. It would be great to see the other choreographers more frequently.

Link to comment
I do wish Petit would foster more performances of his work or that the French government would underwrite some of the costs for international companies to acquire it.

Well, considering that many French dance companies are struggling to get subsidies and that the exposure of the French audience to ballet is getting close to zero in most cities except Paris (and also that when Petit left Marseille, he announced he would settle in Geneva- probably partly for fiscal reasons...), I wouldn't exactly expect such subsidies to be among the French government priorities ! :grinning-smiley-001:

As far as I know, besides France, one country where Petit's works were (are ?) performed quite regularly is Italy. He's often worked with Italian dancers (for example Alessandra Ferri was invited as a guest to perform "Carmen" at the POB) and as far as I know, some of his works are in the repertory of the Scala of Milan.

Link to comment

A question about the cost of presenting ballets by choreographers like Petit. How much of the cost is due to high up-front fees, which might be discretionary? And how much is due to reasonable requirements that the choreographer and/or his representative(s) be actively involved in teaching, setting, rehearsing, and staging the ballet?

(I'm sorry, bart, I intended to quote and reply, but unintentionally edited and replied on your post. I must make sure I'm totally awake next time! - Mel)

Link to comment

I adore Petit’s muse Lucia Lacarra, I saw her performing with Victor Ullate and later on with the Ballet of Marseille and San Francisco Ballet.

I remember her in some Petit’s works such us Coppélia and in Pink Floyd Ballet that has been performed twice in Barcelona by the Tokyo Asami Ballet. This work is a kind of musical that I liked very much, although some find it boring I found it very nice to see and with Lucia on stage I think it gains a lot.

Another Petit’s creation I like is “Le Jeune Homme et la Mort” the first time I saw it was in the opening of the Mikhail Baryshnikov film “White Nights”, brilliant! And then in the Mezzo French TV channel that we have the chance to see in Spain, performed by Nicholas Le Riche et Marie-Agnes Gillot, lovely too!

Link to comment

In answer to bart, above:

A whole LOT of the cost of staging of a ballet is the choreographer's royalty. Balanchine was very kind to the Joffrey, and waived much or all of his fees, but the stagers had to be paid fairly, and while that's not cheap, it's less than the choreographer's take. As we did more and more Ashton, his fees actually went down! Jerry Robbins waived a lot of his bill, but if you get a choreographer actually setting an original work on your company, the fees can be enormous. But now that these guys are all dead, they don't have any more discretion, and the rights-holders can really sock it to producing companies.

Link to comment

this 'turn of events' that mel so clearly states above is, i'm told, even more pronounced in the modern dance area.

one example given was the work of lester horton, which has been so 'high-priced' by his heir(s) that it's more or less unworkable for interested companies, thus, little of no horton is done anywhere.

it's a real puzzle i suppose. fair fees are fair, and understandable, but exhorbidant ones are usally fatal to the 'life' of the choreography in question.

no wonder when the likes of petipa wanted to stage mazilier's CORSAIRE, they just re-did it, here and there, and called it their own.

Link to comment
this 'turn of events' that mel so clearly states above is, i'm told, even more pronounced in the modern dance area.

one example given was the work of lester horton, which has been so 'high-priced' by his heir(s) that it's more or less unworkable for interested companies, thus, little of no horton is done anywhere.

it's a real puzzle i suppose. fair fees are fair, and understandable, but exhorbidant ones are usally fatal to the 'life' of the choreography in question.

no wonder when the likes of petipa wanted to stage mazilier's CORSAIRE, they just re-did it, here and there, and called it their own.

It is a difficult situation for copyright owners of choreography who wish to preserve both the authentic recreation and performing standard of dance works that they hold in trust and they are of course, entitled to set fees as they wish.

I was sorry to hear about the Lester Horton situation as he was an important choreographer from whom a number of important dancers gained inspiration. I was fortunate to see two of his works in the early 1960's when Alvin Ailey's company brought them to London.

In the case of one legendary choreographer of the 20th century, it not only costs a small fortune to acquire from the copyright owners a very second rate version of the original (because only the copyright holder can stage them), there are other fairly hefty fees tagged on to the companies performing the works, on top of the original fee.

Tragically, there are excellent versions that could be staged of such 20th century works, but we shall only be able to see versions that are generally considered very inferior copies produced by certain copyright owners. Future generations may then wonder why particular works were ever held in such esteem.

In the case of Roland Petit, I have seen several very famous dancers in revivals of his ballets who to my mind remained famously themselves and gave rather loose or weak characterisations of Petit's dramatic roles.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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