|
The interview is certainly a fine read. What comes across loud and clear to me is her radical, change-welcoming approach. How could it be otherwise for someone who cut their teeth with Diaghalev and steered UK ballet from its first small steps through to the position today.<P>Madame's comments on the need to change, adapt, discard and create, as well as preserving the best from the past, are summarised by Geilgud:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>....her perception of the way cross-fertilization has always been a major factor in the progress of classical ballet, and its need to continue to do so, should perhaps be heeded by those with a more blinkered outlook....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Some specifics to support this reading:<P>While agreeing that national characteristics will remain, Madame says, <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You can't stop what comes into a country, you can be influenced, but you can't stop it, you shouldn't, because it makes all the others interesting, we all get muddled up together, and produce something that belongs to everyone. That's right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Rather than saying that heritage should be strictly adhered too, she says of classes:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>MG: Do you think the teaching of class has changed a great deal? <P>MADAM: Well, naturally: languages change, our clothes change, everything changes. It's either not good enough and dies altogether, or it develops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>On the high extensions, the language is ambiguous, but I read this as saying that high extensions are acceptable 'for the right dances', even though where they would not have been done that way in the past, but only where appropriate ie not a prayer dance. Whereas the 'heritage only' school, would rule them out in all circumstances.<P>For me, ballet like any art form should be a dynamic, evolving entity. The Shakespearean productions of today are very different from those of 50 years ago and the productions of 1890 would be laughed off the stage now. The key factor for me, as in any artistic production is 'does it work' rather than 'is it the way it was done originally'. <P>grace, the source for my comment on the Petipa choreography changes is Andreja Jelicic, one of my history lecturers at The Laban Centre, who has the advantage over many ballet historians of speaking fluent Russian. She takes the view from her researches that Petipa was relaxed about changing his work and saw himself as a craftsman working under instruction for the Imperial Family. It's not so surprising given that ballet was not considered a serious art form by the Russian intellectuals, but rather a spectacle for the aristocracy and their guests. Fokine was one of the first to be concerned about his changes to his work, as was Nijinski. The question of heritage/adaptation is a big area which could perhaps be discussed in a separate topic - hint to the Moderators.<P><p>[This message has been edited by Stuart Sweeney (edited October 17, 2000).]
|