![]() |
![]() August 2003 London, Covent Garden by Lynette Halewood |
||||||||
What does authentic mean ? Authentic: it’s a word you can attach to antiques maybe, to objects or texts. Just how authentic can a ballet production be ? I reflected on this repeatedly throughout the Kirov’s new / old restaging of La Bayadere, one of their signature works, which is being presented at Covent Garden in a restaging that attempts, as far as is possible, to revert to Petipa’s of 1900 (itself his third major version of the ballet). The result is a long, leisurely production that certainly belongs in a more unhurried age, lavish in spectacle and colour with a huge cast and as much if not more attention paid to gesture, mime and storytelling as to full blooded dance. But the trouble is, we are not an authentic audience. If we were we would perhaps have been there with different motivations than the dance goers of today: ladies confined in corsets, dressed in their best, out to gossip: gentlemen in boiled collars, eyeing up the corps du ballet. We would have been there for a social occasion as much as a cultural one – a chance to show off fancy frocks and flirt. Ideally there should be a Grand Duke or two in the audience, twirling his moustaches and wondering if his special friend would be wearing the jewellery he recently bought her on stage tonight. I’m afraid we were rather less glamorous audience than this suggests. Grand Dukes are now in short supply. Though perhaps we may have paid more attention to what was going on on stage than the audience of 1900 – who can be sure ? And what would an audience of 1900 made of the dancers on stage ? They would probably have thought of them as unattractively thin: and they might have wondered what Sofia Gumerova’s leg was doing when it shot up in the air in those 6 o’clock extensions. The biggest potential problem for us the audience is that we can’t unsee all that has happened in ballet, dance and theatre since then. In 1900 the setting of an imaginary India was no doubt extraordinarily exotic and unfamiliar : hence no on might have remarked on the casual mix up between statues of the Buddha and Hindu deities in the sets. The women’s costumes with their bare midriffs must have been shocking and very daring: not so for us when on every tube journey you are confronted by bare midriffs with accompanying tattoos and piercing. But more worryingly, certain aspects cannot help but raise a giggle in 2003 no matter how sincerely they are done: the fakirs in the opening scene for instance (all by their dancing, quite clearly young men) are burdened with long grey wigs and beards that are straight out of Monty Python’s Life of Brian. There are a series of stuffed animals that likewise provoke mirth: a rather battered stuffed tiger of an improbable bright orange colour, an elephant on wheels and a series of dead parrots on the girls wrists which they do not even try to keep upright through the dance – all bright blue. Norwegian Blues, no doubt.
![]() © John Ross
Solor was Igor Kolb: his dancing role is rather restricted in this production, and the solos that he does have in the Shades act have been added in from a later 1941 production. Given that he had little to do for most of the time apart to stride about looking noble, Kolb fulfilled this quite adequately. When the time came for him to let rip for his solo he did so with enormous energy and force as if he had been restraining his athleticism with difficulty all the rest of the time. It was a reminder of how much more important male dancing has become since 1900: a development I’m glad of, and I wouldn’t be happy to turn the clock back in this regard. I missed a sense in Kolb of real engagement with his Nikiya, Sofia Gumerova. Although she had gained a little in expressiveness since I saw her as a rather wooden Odette a couple of years ago in a previous appearance at the ROH, she was not deeply engaging or sympathetic as Nikiya. Although Kolb seemed to take exemplary care in partnering her, she still did not seem at ease when dancing with him, particularly in the balances, and seemed to be happier dancing on her own. Not a great deal of chemistry there. Where, I wonder, are the great partnerships in this company these days ? Gamzatti, the Rajah’s daughter who is Nikiya’s rival for Solor, was played by Viktoria Tereshkina, a member of the corps. This is mainly an acting role, with very little dancing to do until the final act. This was acting in a more formalised 19th century manner, a sense of playing a particular role than giving an individualised interpretation. Technically she was strong enough for the demands of the solos. I still have a yearning to see this done by a an older dancer with a really powerful stage presence to put across a greater sense of drama. But that doesn’t seem to be what this production is about; it moves in its stately pace, in its formal ways to its surprisingly downbeat ending. In the 19th century, breaking off an engagement was a very serious thing: (wasn’t it possible in England to sue for breach of promise if one’s finance changed his mind ?) this production repeats the motif of Solor swearing to be true to Nikiya many times to underscore this point. ![]() © John Ross
This has been a long review, and yet there is so much I haven’t had time to include: the various character dances, the drummers in red being an audience favourite. The dancing from the soloists was of high quality throughout with some delightful shades from Irina Golub, Irina Zhelonkina and Tatiana Tkachenko. An excursion into a more slow moving and leisured universe, not to be missed for its rarity value.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||