Have ballet performances improved or declined since 1908?

[Matthew]

First, let me note that I'm a first-day newbie, certainly no expert on ballet, and I've clumsily framed my question such that it probably invites misunderstanding and possible flaming. Please go easy on me, folks.

My question is simple: Were we to observe several performances by the world's leading companies of 1908 and 2008, would we--underscore we--generally find today's performances far superior?

I say yes. Today's athletes and dancers in general are superior in every way to their counterparts a century ago--better selection, better training, better conditioning, better coaching, better diet, and far more depth. That said, I understand that ballet is far more than athletics, and that discipline, interpretation, expression, sensitivity, etc. are key to the overall experience.

I've seen several silent-film excerpts of ballet performances from the early 1920s--about 20 years AFTER my stated time frame. The projection speed was fine, but the movements seemed exaggerated, rather ungraceful, and less challenging and far less satisfying than what I've seen from the Kirov, Bolshoi, ABT, etc. These old movie clips seemed pulled from a local company, rather than from one of the world's leading companies (Paris). That said, maybe I saw the wrong footage.

Asked another way: Were we to take the greatest dancers of 1908, and place them on today's stages, would they shine so brightly? And if we transported today's superstars to the stages of 1908, wouldn't the audiences be wowed by their virtuosity--or would their modern interpretations cause a disconnect? (My ignorance is really showing here.) My guess is that most ballet corps today are on average far better than a century ago, and the principals are leagues better than their distant old-time counterparts.

Agree or disagree, and why?

[Leigh Witchel]

Well, welcome to Ballet Talk, Matthew. That's quite a tall order of an opening, kind of like the Jewish parable about someone walking up to Rabbi Hillel and asking the Rabbi to teach him all the Torah while standing on one leg.

We've had this conversation before and I'm sure it will be interesting to have it again, but please do root around and look at our prior discussions.

And now to imitate Rabbi Hillel and give a highly abbreviated answer. There are things that are better and things that are worse. It is different.

[Alexandra]

Thank you, Rabbi!!! Welcome, Matthew!!

A couple of questions back: do yesterday's dancers have to go out on stage without taking class? Or are they allowed to take class with today's dancers and learn new steps, or work different muscles? Yesterday's dancers spent a great deal of energy keeping extensions low, yet emphasized deep, deep back bends. It would take some time to change that. Do the women get to wear contemporary pointe shoes, or would Taglioni have to try Balanchine wearing a slipper that gave her absolutely no support -- her strength was in her feet.

Would today's dancers have to go back and do a full-evening ballet that was 2/3 mime -- at a time when audiences appreciated mime and judged a dancer on his/her abilities as a mime -- without rehearsal? Or could they have a few classes to teach them how to create a character? Could they also get a few lessons on how to fill a variation, or would they have to go out on stage 100 years ago and just do the steps?

I'll go with Rabbi Hillel the Second: It is different

[bart]

Thank you, Matthew for raising a great topic. Your question seems especially pertinent today, when ballet -- like it or not -- seems once again to be going through a time of change as to training, technique, and the sense of what is "beautiful."

Alexandra, you say more about how ballet changed during the 20th century in those two paragraphs than many have said in a couple of chapters.

I hope we'll be hearing from many others on this topic.

[SanderO]

Well, being completely ignorant of ballet history all you can rely on would be films and you could do some A/B comparisons of classic ballets.. Swan Lake whatever and review the performances compared with some of the 2008 company performances.

My sense is that in A/B comparisons Matthew would be correct. I say this because I believe that over time things get perfected even though the amount of incremental change gets smaller as time marches on.

Look at Olympic competitions, athletes ARE getting better, running faster, jumping higher and so forth. I would think the same would apply to ballet... more perfect extensions, high jumps and so forth. I have no evidence for this claim, but I suspect a study of the old films will indicate that today's dancers are a bit better... at least in the virtuosity WOW stuff.

I don't think the same is happening in Opera however. Voices are different but training a voice is not the same as training an entire body and moving it in dance.

[Alexandra]

I think if one thinks of ballet as a sport -- an Olympics -- then the answer might be yes. If one considers it an art form, and takes all of its facets (musicality, placement, epaulement, dramatic ability, style, etc etc etc) the answer would be quite different. I don't think one can disregard history of performance styles when comparing one era to another.

As has been often written here, judging dancers by old films is very hard to do unless you know how to read them There are so many aspects -- state of photography, the small space that had to be used, etc. -- that it's comparing apples and oranges.

[bart]

As has been often written here, judging dancers by old films is very hard to do unless you know how to read them There are so many aspects -- state of photography, the small space that had to be used, etc. -- that it's comparing apples and oranges.

The same applies to still photographs. Dancers today can be captured in flight. Dancers of the 19th and early 20th centeuries, poorly lighted, wearing over-elaborate costumes, and required to remain unnaturally still, appear stiff, solid, and earth-bound in comparison.

[carbro]

Those things that are measurable have certainly improved. Dancers do more turns, bigger jumps, do faster and cleaner petit allegro (which tends to be fast, jumpy, little beats of the leg). But I fear we have lost much of what is not measurable: grace, manners, theatricality.

[SanderO]

Alexandra,

I used the athlete as an analogy and did not mean to focus my comment on only the athleticism of ballet.

I would think you could A/B all the things you mentioned, epaulement, for example, of a dancer to those doing the same role today. I still maintain that today's artists are likely, as a rule, more perfected than those in the past. Classical choreography is another matter. To me this would be like someone tying to imitate Mozart, I sense that they couldn't cute it.

I have the same feeling about film making. There is lots of crap today, but some actors and cinematographers have really move the form ahead. It's part of progress for things to improve and I think it happens in ballet. I think it happens in a company over time.. it gets better or should. It happens to individual dancers in their own evolution... they get better over time.

Obviously, this trajectory cannot be endless and is limited. But I sense that devoted practitioners are improving on the past in all ways, some more than others.

[Alexandra]

Read Magri He writes in the 18th century of "fairgrounds dancer" (i.e., acrobats) doing amazing things. My favorite is a nameless woman who could do 32 entrechat huit. It was a circus trick -- if a dancer today devoted her life to this one step and practiced it incessantly she'd probably do it too. As I tell my students, today's dancers are not space aliens. They have the same bodies that people did in 1800 or 1600. One difference today is that companies can be more selective -- and are selecting for different things - and so I don't think too many people would argue that the level of dancing in the corps is much much higher than 50 or 100 years ago. But the STARS have always had a very high level of technique, and roles that challenged them still challenge dancers today. There's a new book out about dance in the 18th century, at the Opera and on the fairgrounds, with eyewitness accounts (letters, diaries of observers) of technical feats that are quite astounding, including male dancing on point in the mid-1700s.

Whenever this topic comes up, we often say we aren't just talking about technique, but I can't remember reading much about anything except about technique. I think there are different elements to consider. For example, dancers in the 40s (from film evidence) turn very, very fast -- but aren't very concerned about placement. They wouldn't phrase it that way. They'd say, "Placement is for lthe classroom. The stage isn't the classroom." If you're worried about epaulement (which I see precious little of today. The Kirov is in town, or I could say I haven't seen it all year), about musicality, about style, then you will do fewer pirouettes.

Editing to add: I often see dancers whom I think are "better" than anyone I've ever seen -- Cornejo's Puck in Ashton's "Dream," and the man who's dancing the Golden Idol with the Kirov probably just as I'm writing this (Grigory Popov). If I say that around someone who's seen more "Dreams" than I have, or many more Kirov "Bayadere's" than I have, I'll probably get, "Ah, but you didn't see X-ov in the role."

I'll stop now, at least for awhile

Edited January 24, 2008 by Alexandra
two sentences for clarity, added a comment

[Ostrich]

I think one mustn't forget that even if you could "measure" all the different aspects of ballet, audiences will never be free from the influence of the familiar. I mean that to an audience used to seeing extesnsions not higher than 90 degrees, today's dancers would look shocking, painful, not to mention indecent. But a modern audience, accustomed to high extensions, will see the dancers of 100 years ago as dreadfully restricted in movement. That's not to say that either the one or the other is "better". It depends on what you are used to what you like and how these extensions, regardless of their hight, are used.

Of course I could have used a different example. Shoulders, for example. A great barrier, for me, to enjoying dancers of the past (I know, I know, you can't really judge from film footage, but still) are those horrible raised shoulders. Ulanova uses them a lot and incorporates them into her acting. To me it looks stiff, inelegant and, frankly, affected (although I am a big admirer of Ulanova in other ways). But I'm sure people who saw Ulanova would disagree.

[SanderO]

But Ostrich raises the issue, assuming his observations ring true, that technique has evolved. Are these changes just moving horizontally.. ie a different approach, or have our contemporary dancers, teachers, choreography moved "technique" up a notch?

My gut feeling is that this geniuses study movement, and the body very closely and have some sort of platonic ideal that they try to acheive and the genre is improving.. that is getting closer to some sort of ideal. But the question is... whose ideal? Why is a high extension "more perfect" than a 90° one?

Anyone have the answer?

[Leigh Witchel]

From an article I wrote in the print edition of DanceView in 2001 on Reminiscence, which touches on this question several times as Ashley Bourder learned a Balanchine variation originally danced in 1936 by Leda Anchutina:

Bouder put on her pointe shoes and filmed the variation in two halves. It was like watching a steeplechase. McDill suggests slowing down the tempo for the fouettés in the circle to pace the variation better. After a run, Mann corrects the développé/plié series to move more, longer, and push off into the plié, rather than Bouder falling under herself. The emphasis on daring and amplitude seems comfortingly familiar to Balanchine watchers, but "bigger" and "more" meant something slightly different when the dancer was Anchutina or Caccialanza than it did when the dancer was LeClercq or Farrell, or now Kistler and Whelan. "Push with your back toe." Mann corrected, as Bouder's frustration gradually became apparent. Mann wants almost a jété out of the extension forward, and Bouder can't quite figure out how to do it from that position without sacrificing her placement. In 1936 that wouldn't have been an issue.

[canbelto]

I kind of am the opinion that Quality is Quality, even if it requires different mindsets and expectations. I believe the standards in top companies have always been very high, and it says a lot that over a century after many of Marius Petipa's pieces were choreographed, dancers still struggle with the pure technique of the ballets. For instance, I saw a highly regarded dancer a top company (that I happen to like) dance the Rose Adagio in Sleeping Beauty a few years ago, and she was never able to balance. She seemed nervous, and frantically grabbed the prince's next hand in succession and wobbled throughout. Now one could have gone home and popped in a tape of Margot Fonteyn sailing through the same Rose Adagio, with each balance held, arms in Fifth, like the choreography was simply made for her, and said, "What was wrong with the Auroras today? I'm never going to see a good Sleeping Beauty again."

Or, one could have gone to the Royal Ballet, and saw Marianela Nunez as Aurora, and concluded that Quality is Quality.

[Ostrich]

over a century after many of Marius Petipa's pieces were choreographed, dancers still struggle with the pure technique of the ballets.

I recently read an interview with Natalia Osipova regarding her Giselle - I can't seem to find it again now that I want to post a link to it - in which she states that in her performance of Giselle she went back to the more "original" choreography in some places which had been abandoned or changed because it was considered too difficult (for which she was apparently criticized, the audience being under the impression that she'd made it up). This backs up the point canbelto mentioned.

[innopac]

over a century after many of Marius Petipa's pieces were choreographed, dancers still struggle with the pure technique of the ballets.

I recently read an interview with Natalia Osipova regarding her Giselle - I can't seem to find it again now that I want to post a link to it - in which she states that in her performance of Giselle she went back to the more "original" choreography in some places which had been abandoned or changed because it was considered too difficult (for which she was apparently criticized, the audience being under the impression that she'd made it up). This backs up the point canbelto mentioned.

Is this the Interview?

Osipova talking about Giselle: "But if we are talking about the second act, there we did add some technical challenges to the duets, and more precisely to the lifts, which in fact were choreographed that way a long time ago. At the end of the adagio, for example, we do the “swallow”. Everyone had always done it. People started to say, “What have they done!” But Marina Victorovna said, “What are you talking about, thirty years ago we all danced it like that.” In her time, all partners lifted their ballerinas in a “swallow”.

[Hans]

Why is a high extension "more perfect" than a 90° one?

Anyone have the answer?

It isn't.

There are dreadfully imperfect high extensions and stunningly beautiful 90º ones, as well as, of course, vice versa.

[innopac]

Thinking about this thread I just re-watched the Schubert pas de deux with Ekaterina Geltzer and Vasili Tikhomirov (from the dvd The Glory of the Bolshoi) which is also now on YouTube. Once you get beyond the costuming and melodramatic poses of another time it seems to me that there is a moment that many dancers of today would have difficulty with where Geltzer gets up from a kneeling position to go on pointe without assistance. Or is this just showing my ignorance?

[SanderO]

I suspect that you can find dancers from the past who are amazing by ANY standards, but I thought the thrust was more about the entire performance genre... are most dancers performing at a higher level, are the corps more in sync today etc? Aside from perhaps choreography which seems to need some time to test it out... my sense is performances SHOULD be getting better.

[bart]

When evaluating performances, there are several variables. It's not only what the dancer is doing -- it's also what the audience looks for and sees.

Were ballet audiences 100+ years ago paying as much attention while sitting in the theater as they (mostly) do today? Without our constant exposure to video close-ups in film, did they really look closely -- even microscopically, as some do today -- to every movement of individual dancers? Did they tend to focus on individuals at all -- or on ensemble and spectacle?

[popularlibrary]

A question I've rarely seen addressed - and I'm not sure this is the right place to pose it - concerns how technique, ballet company practice, and choreography were affected in the 19th century through the pre-WWI period by the sad fact that ballet companies, especially the large, central ones, were so often used by the well-to-do/aristocratic men of their audiences as brothels. How has the glorification of the ballerina and all the slanting of choreography towards female roles been influenced by art and aesthetics, and how much by the demand of powerful men for the display of beautiful women to be chosen as mistresses, courtesans and common prostitutes? It's not a pleasant question, but I think the basic situation of directors and choreographers having to, in some measure, play the pimp for powerful men on the make, must have influenced the development of the art itself.

If dancers are better today, is it because the power this audience wielded has been largely dissipated (other, jazzier sex objects having long since replaced ballet dancers), and a Petipa replaced by a Balanchine? Yet ballet is rarely analyzed from this point of view. Anyone have any thoughts on this?