Schaufuss Interviews/news items

Peter Schaufuss was an international star in the 1970s and 1980s, before he became the artistic director of the London Festival Ballet (now called the English National Ballet) in 1984. He was the artistic director of the Deutsch Oper Ballet in Berlin from 1990 to 1994 when he became the artistic director of his native Royal Danish Ballet. In 1997 he formed his own company "Peter Schaufuss Ballet" which toured London last year with Schaufuss' ballet "The King".

Question: You didn't stay long as the artistic director of the Royal Danish Ballet.

Schaufuss: I only stayed for a year, though I originally had a seven-year contract. I wanted to start my own company. After having been director of the English National Ballet, Berlin Ballet, and the Royal Danish Ballet, I felt that it wasn't for me any more to be the director of a company where I was not free to do what I wanted to do. Because when you are hired as a director in a traditional company, there's always someone above you. This is simply the truth. I am glad to be in the position that I am in now with my own company.

Q: What changes have you introduced in Copenhagen?

S: I staged Ashton's "Romeo and Juliet" for the Royal Danish. It's one of Ashton's masterpieces. And after all, my mother (Mona Vangsaae) was the original Juliet, and my father (Frank Schaufuss) was Mercutio. But people in Denmark preferred John Neumeier's "Romeo and Juliet", and didn't understand why I wanted to bring the Ashton version back.

I also staged "La Sylphide". I asked Niels Bjorn Larsen and Kirsten Ralov to restage "Konservatoriet" in its full-length two-act version. I actually planned to revive two Bournonville ballets every year.

I brought back Henning Kronstam (a former artistic director of the Royal Danish Ballet) before he died, and Adam Luders (a former principal of New York City Ballet). I invited Peter Martins to do an original full-length ballet, which was in the end changed to "Swan Lake" when I left. I brought the choreographer Kim Brandstrup.

Although the Royal Danish Ballet didn't work out the way I had hoped, still it's led to the present situation in which I have my own company.

Q: Do you see a decline in the Bournonville repertory?

S: When you are famous for one thing, there's always the danger in doing many things, because you can't concentrate on the one thing. But there are lots of old dancers who can take care of the repertory. It's just a matter of putting it into function.

Q: Can you tell us the highlights of your directorship of the Berlin Ballet?

S: We did a wide range of repertory. I started some young choreographers there. I had four young people doing new pieces every four months. I staged "Giselle", restaged "A Folk Tale", and did a classical version of the "Tchaikovsky Trilogy". I had a very creative time there. I also brought Bejart, Roland Petit, Christopher Bruce, Michael Clark, and Stephen Petronio as guest choreographers. We did Bejart's "The Ring".

Going from London, I had a larger budget in Berlin. In my four years there, I staged more than 32 productions.

Q: You had a good relationship with the Kirov?

S: Yes, I had a good relationship with Oleg Vinogradov (the Kirov's former artistic director). I danced with the Kirov in St. Petersburg and also in London. I had a good relationship with Igor Zelensky. Susan Hogard danced with the Kirov in St. Petersburg, while Yulia Makhalina came to dance in Berlin. Makhalina danced in "The Ring", "Symphony in C", and other repertory.

Q: You were abrupty dismissed in 1990 as director of the English National Ballet.

S: What really happened was that the board changed and there was a new chairman (Lady Pamela Harlech). They wanted me to change my artistic policies, and do things differently from what I had been doing in the past six years. The company had had a great success. The company's dancers however wanted to follow my policies, so I fought till my last day.

I would have thought that they wanted to acquire good artistic direction, but often well-meaning amateurs who employ you are the ones who decide, and if you don't do what they tell you, then you are out!

All my time in England was very enjoyable. Ashton was very pleased with our staging of his "Romeo and Juliet", and he left it in his will to me when he diedd. He had attended rehearsals for six weeks. Actually even before becoming director of the London Festival Ballet, I had worked on this idea of reviving this Ashton ballet.

It was also very nice to get Rudolf (Nureyev) back on stage, as well as Natalia Makarova (who made Tatiana in "Onegin" one of her greatest roles). We did 36 new productions including 6 full-length ballets. The audience capacity was 56% when I first joined the company, and it moved to 96% when I left. We did many overseas tours, including one to the New York Met in 1989. The company was a big success, and it was easy to find sponsors.

Q: Why did you decide to change the name of London Festival Ballet to English National Ballet?

S: When I was there, more than half the dancers were British - actually more than 75% of the whole organisation including stage crew, admin staff, technicians, and musicians. We had an English resident choreographer in Christopher Bruce, and we had works by Ashton and MacMillan. I planned to bring ENB into London Coliseum in line with the English National Opera, just like at the Royal Opera House.

Q: How do you see the future of classical ballet?

S: Classical ballet is perhaps in a situation like opera 30 years ago. They keep doing the classics the same way as they've been doing them for the past 100 years. In opera they managed to renew themselves and do them in other ways, but in ballet they are very much staying the same. That's why perhaps the art form of ballet is stagnant, and that's why I've chosen to make my own company to do new things.

You either choose to do the classics as close to the authentic way as possible, but you can never do it, because there's only one performance that's authentic, and that's the first performance. The second performance will change a little bit, and then there will be more changes with different performers. You can try to revive it like a museum piece. Or you can try to be creative, and do it in a way which follows time.

I did "Kermesse in Bruges" for my company last September. I did a new version, using the original story of "The Three Gifts", but updating the story. One of the brothers got a sword, the other a fring, and the third got a viola. But in my version he got a CD player. I also used music by David Bowie and another techno composer who composed music round it.

Bournonville's ballets have been danced continuously since their premieres. But I don't think you'll recognise "La Sylphide" today if you saw the original, because it's changed so much with performers. Actually it's only in our day that we change the cast so often. You must remember that in those days one dancer did a role for 20 years before retirement, and then another dancer succeeded him. And of course during that time a performer would have been adding to the role because he's not staying the same. He would only become better and better, and so things change little by little. There's no shame in that, because it's still original though not authentic.

It will be interesting to see the original "La Sylphide", because we know from the music score that things have been moved around, taken out, and added in. At least the Balanchine and Ashton ballets have been filmed individually, so that you can always return to them.

If you look at silent movies from the beginning of the 20th century with Hans Beck and Valborg Brochsenius dancing Bournonville in a small studio, and then a film from 1955 with a small group of the Royal Danish Ballet dancers dancing "Konservatoriet" and other extracts in Jacob's Pillow in America, you'll already see an enormous change in the way Bournonville is danced with a 51-year gap. And imagine what was originally danced in 1850!