Side stage
Image: Scottish Ballet
See stuff for
| Rating |  |
| Event name | Triple Bill |
| Venue | Playhouse, Edinburgh |
| Date | 4 September 2009 |
Where are Scottish Ballet heading? They are a brilliant contemporary company, pulling in work from choreographic greats – this triple bill featured William Forsythe's WorkwithinWork, a masterpiece given the right amount of reverence and flair. Then they are a standard provincial troupe, reviving dull classics – Ashton's Scenes de Ballet, a robotic set-piece danced without precision. The final work, Ian Spink's new version of Petrushka, offered few clues: a workman-like retelling of the Diaghilev one act tragedy, it updates the action to modern Russia, has a clear narrative line and appropriately bustling crowd scenes, while ballet dancers pole-dance and ape b-boy moves.
The recent excitement about Scottish Ballet came from artistic director Ashley Page's introduction of less sentimental, daring choreography. Following Rambert's conversion to modern dance in the 1960s, they picked up some Balanchine that they execute perfectly. Forsythe's contribution, a revival of the moment before he broadly abandoned ballet for a radical direction, is instructive. The company are exact, perfect in timing and attentive to detail, each sequence both emotionally and technically excellent. The play in the pas de deux is sensuous, the larger ensembles tight. On this form, Scottish Ballet are world-beaters. But opening with Frederick Ashton's abstract workhorse lowers expectations. The corps are solid, but not perfect, and a ballet already stiff and formal looses impact with anything less than perfection. The choreography is stifling, the costumes embarrassingly stylised. Ashton admitted that he became fascinated by geometry during the work's creation, and it shows as a drab mathematical exercise. Perhaps influenced by Balanchine's almost mechanical arrangement of the corps de ballet, he tried to reflect Stravinsky's score in a series of set-pieces that could be viewed from every angle. It has not aged well, and exposes a company that is no longer comfortable with classicism.
Spink's Petrushka is not a disappointment: there is plenty of bustle in the crowd scenes and a willingness to engage with both the love-triangle at the centre of the story and the new Russian economy. The manic energy of a market-place and the underlying discontent behind the lives of both “dolls” and humans are all effectively portrayed. Spink is less successful in transforming a ballet dancer into a pole dancer – it fails to signify an intended sexiness – and the coachman steps of the original may find a logical analogy in b-boy tricks, but they are not comfortable shapes for a corps de ballet. These are worthwhile updates, but need dancers skilled in the art to be convincing, and leave a patronising tension. Yet the ménage between the three dolls is thrilling captured; the brutality abrupt; the final haunting suitably ghostly and weird. Given Petruschka's status in ballet – the Bolshoi did a version that was visually stunning and emotionally draining – Spink has not discredited himself, without fully re-imagining the story.
If the Ashton can be disregarded – it feels like a sop to traditionalists – this is a four star show, given impetus by Workwithinwork and Petrushka maintaining a holding pattern of gentle experimentation. The actual sequence of the three pieces, from traditional to new, is wise and the company is revelling in a very strong grounding in technique and flair. The Autumn Bill, which has Balanchine and Pastor's In Light and Shadow, promises to be far more representative and interesting.
Okay, Ashton's brilliant masterpiece Scenes de Ballet is a stodgy, stifling dull workhorse compared to the tedious drivel of Spink and vacuous glamour of Forsythe? The fact the reviewer knows nothing about ballet is sad enough in itself, perhaps he should ponder the fact that the fault lies not with Ashton but with Scottish Ballet who don't have a company capable of dancing this work properly.
Page has done wonders with Scottish ballet, I don't deny it BUT it's a company of mishmashed dancers and techniques with no homogeny of style and such disparities between the few classicists and majority of "modern" ballet dancers and contemporary dancers who make up its ranks that perhaps it would be better for them to avoid classicism altogether until they have a corps and enough soloists to actually tackle the classics and neo classics properly.
The saddest thing about this atrocious reviewer is that novice readers will come away thinking that Scenes de Ballet is a dud. It's not, the only duds here are Scottish Ballets lack of classical technique and this rather self-important wrong footed reviewer.
Oh dear! Good to hear some passion. I think scenes de ballet is a gem (a museum piece that we should be reminded of occasionally)and obviously a serious challenge for any company. But times move on, we don't want Museum Companies do we?. Ashley is very brave moving this 'ballet' company into the current century (especially) in Scotland, it's a real test for them (and us ) all... and also anyone who creates new work with them. Subjective as I am.. I think the company is still in the process of evolving. The Forsyth, a masterpiece - from a choreographer who had extensive German creative time and experience (and inspiration), continuous work with an existing group of ballet trained dancers. I'm attracted to Ashley's provocative style of programming. He drives us all crazy, But hey! We should be jumping on the seats... shouldn't we?
Thank you to Simon and Ian for taking the time to comment. While I accept that I am terribly self-important and that the company may have undermined Scenes de Ballet , my personal taste has always veered towards MacMillan over Ashton, and I review accordingly.
I also think that this conversation reflects a rather worrying trend, both in the ballet world on internet forums. Some who would defend classical ballet tend to be over-protective: as a reviewer, I want to be clear that I prefer contemporary work, that I am informed by currents in Europe and prefer to see works like Spink's Petruschka, even when they don't always excel, than mechanical reproductions of 'classics'. There is no need to suggest from this that I "know nothing about ballet".
Within forums, the ease with which unregistered comments can fling around insults is disturbing. My review may be terrible, but there are no grounds to make personal comments about me. As Ian notes, it is good to see some passion, though: should Simon care to offer his reviewing services to The Skinny, I would be delighted to have him on board.
Although personal, I don't know that Simon is being overprotective of "Scenes de Ballet" in his defense. If a theater reviewer wrote an equivalent review of Shakespeare, (or for that matter Pinter to take someone from a closer time period,) could s/he get away with blanket pronouncements about the work not being fit for current repertory? Does not liking Shakespeare excuse one from taking it seriously?
There are those who prefer MacMillan and those who prefer Ashton (I'm in the latter camp - and also to disclose, a reviewer myself) but there's something misguided about calling either men's work museum pieces or implying that they are only of historical interest. The point to masterpieces is that every generation gets to engage them. Not as museum works, but actively, as they would "King Lear" or "The Iliad." It's essential for each generation to do work that mirrors their lives as lived, but ballet without Ashton, Balanchine, Petipa or any of those "museum pieces" is ballet for amnesiacs.
Thank you for continuing the debate, Leigh. The parallel with Shakespeare is informative: a continued engagement with great works of the past is important. But Shakespeare's plays are not performed with the same costumes as the original version, nor the same set, and are re-invented by each generation, not restaged.
While I'd agree that ignoring the classics would cut off dance from a rich tradition, I don't feel that "Scenes de Ballet" is a great work, as it aims at a mathematical elegance over emotional communication.
I recently caught a revival of "Dante Sonata" by Ashton, and I certainly would not condemn all of his works. However, it is important that, as reviewers, we are clear about our personal tastes. From this, readers can start to assess whether or not they are likely to agree with our conclusions.
Simon might be correct that the weakness of the dancers undermined Ashton's choreography: I'd love to hear why "Scenes de Ballet" is a masterpiece, argued without rancour or demeaning contemporary work.
To address your points, Gareth -
After we're no longer here, Balanchine and Ashton will have to change, and become text only. I recently heard someone state (I may be misquoting but you'll see the point) that certain Petipa roles could not be danced be someone over 5'2". Perhaps there's a veracity to the line Petipa choreographed on, but we're all taller now. You can't ignore the shift of a culture and history underneath a work of art.
That said, you can re-interpret, or you can advocate - and I have a soft spot for the advocates - the ones who try and take Shakespeare or Ashton and illuminate what they did rather than use them to tell their own story.
I'm going to borrow from myself to defend Scenes de Ballet. The full (long) essay lives here - http://danceviewtimes.com/2004/summer/Ashton/reviews/ac08.htm
I find that "Scemes" mathematical elegance *is* an emotional statement. Here's a bit:
"Ashton does occasionally use the gridded corps patterns also in "Theme. [and Variations by Balanchine]" He lines the corps up in a square, four lines of four. But Euclid intervenes; they’re facing to the diagonal with their backs to us and the men are sprinkled through the women in a logical irregularity. Towards the end, Ashton lines the women and the men up to face us and we respond half automatically, “Finale!” But it isn’t—quite. And then you notice the men are in a line of four and the women in threes. Ashton is constantly trying to fool our eyes into seeing the irregular as regular
. . .
Balanchine often compared himself to a chef or a gardener. Perhaps Ashton is more of a couturier, and with that, we return to Christian Dior. "In a machine age, dressmaking is one of the last refuges of the human, the personal, the inimitable.” Balanchine made the impersonal deeply human; Ashton has taken the classical and made it personal."
Thank you, Leigh. I am certainly convinced by your argument, and woukd moderate my statement that "Scenes de Ballet" is a mere workhorse. There is obviously a more subtle play within the formations than I acknowledged, and a sophistication that was possibly lost in the Scottish Ballet production, at least to me.
As for your other point: I think that we shall probably disagree about advocacy and re-interpretation, but that seems fine. It probably comes down to our personal histories, and the reasons that we cover dance: a fascinating conversation I hope we can have in the future.
Thank you again for taking the time to make a reasoned argument. I really appreciate it. Can I invite you to register on this site, and please continue to contribute to the forum?
Gareth,
There is no rancour,nor am I demeaning contemporary ballet. Scenes de ballet is contemporary, more so than Spink and a great deal of Forsythe.
You have no desire to discuss and the paucity of your knowledge is self evident. The fact you favour the groin groping grapplings of Macmillan over the sparse beauty of Ashton is indeed your pregrogative though it's an end in itself in terms of argument sake because your aesthetic criteria are so limited.
I do like certain Forsythe works, I'm not a fan of a great deal of Spink though his work with Second Stride was remarkable.
Scottish ballet are okay, they're predominantly a contemporary ballet company but they fall down when called upon to dance the classics with any real wit, authority or ability. Their Balanchine is lacklustre ditto Ashton, but when they bump and grind to Radiohead etc they're fine.
You rate Ashton on the basis of Dante Sonata and Scenes de Ballet, the first isn't a major Ashton work, the second you don't have the ability to judge. Stick with your Macmillan and second rate modern works, it's where you're happiest and feel safest. Good luck continuing to review dance here and may it give you the niche you so richly deserve.
Best.
Simon (as I assume that the latest comment is from you)
Since we appear to agree that Scottish ballet are more effective as a contemporary than a classical company, our main disagreement seems to be on grounds of aesthetics.
I acknowledge that my aesthetic criteria are not shared by you: given the level of coverage of dance online, that doesn't seem to be a problem, as other writers such as Leigh are capable of developing thoughtful and intelligent analyses from other perspectives.
I do object to sweeping statements about my willingness to discuss or my aesthetic criteria. The "groin groping grapplings" is a pretty witty turn of phrase, though.
I suggest that we move this conversation to the forum, where we can continue this discussion and compare our aesthetics, and perhaps find common ground.