Bolshoi 'Spartacus' reviews 'Spartacus' reviews recent Bolshoi reviews more Leonid reviews Discuss these thoughts (Open for at least 6 months) Gallery of Photographs

As posted on our Postings pages...

It was of course a Bolshoi quite different to that which had been seen in London earlier in the decade or for those that saw the 1956 visit and I found London (and New York)"swingers" and fairly conservative regulars of the Royal Opera House equally joined in vociferous enthusiasm for Grigorovich's ballet.

Spartacus broke the mould of classical ballets of the past, helped by cinematic pulsating music and elegiac themes, to exist as its own genre, a blatant entertainment in terms of a dance spectacle and yes, it was undoubtedly a paean to Soviet ideals.

If a Spartacus is a “crude and empty of meaning and choreographic interest", that einhorn suggests Wulff implies, I would ask what points of reference are being employed. There are definitely moments in MacMillan ballets that fit such a description, but the performances by distinguished dance actors in leading roles make you forget those moments.

However crude it may appear to some, for me it has only been so, when I saw lesser stars than Maximova, Timofeyeva, Liepa and Vasiliev in leading roles and with out that revelatory male corps de ballet of strong muscular men that leapt and flew across the stage in 1969 like no other corps de ballet could achieve at that time. einhorn states, “The way that British and American audiences and reviewers see this work is very different to that of Soviet and Russian viewers and has been since its inception. That is worth further examination.”

I wonder how much einhorn you know of either the sophistication or culture of the Bolshoi‘s ballet audiences of 1968 as I suspect they reacted to such extraordinary performances in the same way we did in London. There were as far as I remember,no serious or overt mention of the politics of this ballet in the British press of that time. The reception by audiences in New York (Bolshoi Ballet first visited there in 1959) to Spartacus in 1975 was no different to that in London. It was referred to as a soviet allegory but was reviewed on its own terms.

Wolff as elegantly as ever states, “And yet, this ballet is a huge audience pleaser. Why? Well, I think that Grigorovich knew exactly what he was doing in appropriating for his own ends those techniques of mass movements and display that have proved so potent in political rallies and have fired up people to do and believe things that otherwise might not have occurred to them to do and believe. In short, I see this as a highly manipulative piece of theatre, and to those who would say that it represents a profound theatrical experience I would say, "Sorry folks; you've been conned.... By a master manipulator".

I would say that all important choreographers know what they are doing. Petipa in “The Sleeping Beauty” also created a political piece of propaganda for the Imperial Court when he represented Royal’s as being good and wholesome and that such dynasties should continue happily ever after, with those of evil design, who would alter the status quo receiving their just rewards.

Spartacus as “a profound experience”, I won’t comment. However I can remember a lot of twenty or so year olds flushed with excitement as they exited the theatre confirmed Bolshoi and ballet enthusiasts. Did they watch the ballet in terms of a political statement, I think not and nor do I believe did the right wing Tories or left wing Labourites who saw the performances saw it as such either. It was just bloody good and thrilling entertainment by a great company of dancers and nor do I do think it converted anyone to Stalinist soviet communism.