Full Version: Le Sacre du Printemps
Has anyone out there seen a ballet company do this ballet to Nijinsky's choreography? Just what made the audience at the first performance so upset? Monteux was the conductor, did he ever make any comments about that performance? Is there a DVD that does justice to the original concept?
Good and difficult questions, all. Sacre is a huge milestone in the history of dance, the kind of work that has achieved notoriety beyond the dance world. It has been labeled as a turning point in the development of western art, tagged as the "first real modern dance", used as a metaphor for the displacement of World War I, and blamed for the eventual dissolution of the Balelt Russe -- not in that order(!)
The original ballet only had a handful of performances, and did not last in permanent repertory. It was, though, the topic of considerable speculation, both academic and artistic. It was, in a way, like Woodstock -- people were proud to claim that they had been in the audience for the event. And like Woodstock, over time it has come to mean almost more as an event than as an actual artwork.
Several choreographers have made work to the score since its 1913 debut, and though some of them have lasted far longer in active repertories, none of them have made the same 'splash' as the original. Most of the dance world thought it was lost beyond retrieval, but historians Millicent Hodson and Kenneth Archer were not convinced it was hopeless. Many of the dancers who had been in the original production had taught what they remembered in various situations, and there were extant renderings of the sets and costumes. Hodson and Archer began to compile all this material, laying out sketches alongside the score. They knew that Marie Rambert, who Diaghilev had hired to assist Nijinsky analyse the score, had made copious notes, but they didn't actually find that document until they were almost finished with their compilation.
Robert Joffrey was an enthusiastic collector of anything having to do with the Ballet Russe -- he'd had Massine set some his early work on the company and encouraged Hodson and Archer to keep working on Sacre -- finally when they were ready to start staging, they worked first with the Joffrey. The version of the work they created, using the Rambert documents to check their work, is not a reconstruction of the original choreography so much as it is a new creation using all those original materials. I cannot say that it is the same ballet, but it is certainly the closest that we can get (time travel being what it is). And in some ways, the hullabaloo this restaging created in the dance world echoed the ruckus the original work inspired.
PBS broadcast a Dance in America program in the 1989, featuring extensive interviews with Hodson and Archer as well as a cleanly filmed version of the company in the ballet. Since then, H and A have staged the work on a few other companies, including the Paris Opera and the Maryinsky -- these have been filmed and broadcast in various places. (see here for some conversation about film versions) I don't know if anyone has it in their active repertory at this moment, but I imagine it is around and about in the Ballet Russe anniversary programming this year.
If you're interested in some of the history surrounding the work, I highly recommend Shelly Berg's "Le Sacre du Printemps: Seven Productions from Nijinsky to Martha Graham" It's out of print so you might have to interlibrary loan it (try you local college library), but she's an excellent historian and her descriptions of the different works are visceral and evocative.
Like most dance fanatics, you just have to mention Sacre to get my full attention -- it's a fascinating ballet.
The original ballet only had a handful of performances, and did not last in permanent repertory. It was, though, the topic of considerable speculation, both academic and artistic. It was, in a way, like Woodstock -- people were proud to claim that they had been in the audience for the event. And like Woodstock, over time it has come to mean almost more as an event than as an actual artwork.
Several choreographers have made work to the score since its 1913 debut, and though some of them have lasted far longer in active repertories, none of them have made the same 'splash' as the original. Most of the dance world thought it was lost beyond retrieval, but historians Millicent Hodson and Kenneth Archer were not convinced it was hopeless. Many of the dancers who had been in the original production had taught what they remembered in various situations, and there were extant renderings of the sets and costumes. Hodson and Archer began to compile all this material, laying out sketches alongside the score. They knew that Marie Rambert, who Diaghilev had hired to assist Nijinsky analyse the score, had made copious notes, but they didn't actually find that document until they were almost finished with their compilation.
Robert Joffrey was an enthusiastic collector of anything having to do with the Ballet Russe -- he'd had Massine set some his early work on the company and encouraged Hodson and Archer to keep working on Sacre -- finally when they were ready to start staging, they worked first with the Joffrey. The version of the work they created, using the Rambert documents to check their work, is not a reconstruction of the original choreography so much as it is a new creation using all those original materials. I cannot say that it is the same ballet, but it is certainly the closest that we can get (time travel being what it is). And in some ways, the hullabaloo this restaging created in the dance world echoed the ruckus the original work inspired.
PBS broadcast a Dance in America program in the 1989, featuring extensive interviews with Hodson and Archer as well as a cleanly filmed version of the company in the ballet. Since then, H and A have staged the work on a few other companies, including the Paris Opera and the Maryinsky -- these have been filmed and broadcast in various places. (see here for some conversation about film versions) I don't know if anyone has it in their active repertory at this moment, but I imagine it is around and about in the Ballet Russe anniversary programming this year.
If you're interested in some of the history surrounding the work, I highly recommend Shelly Berg's "Le Sacre du Printemps: Seven Productions from Nijinsky to Martha Graham" It's out of print so you might have to interlibrary loan it (try you local college library), but she's an excellent historian and her descriptions of the different works are visceral and evocative.
Like most dance fanatics, you just have to mention Sacre to get my full attention -- it's a fascinating ballet.
Watch the Joffrey version, which is in several parts on YouTube. It is one of the best performances of anything I've ever seen.
The version that the Mariinsky did recently -- a live video version was screened a month or two ago, and there should be a DVD -- was tepid.
The version that the Mariinsky did recently -- a live video version was screened a month or two ago, and there should be a DVD -- was tepid.
has there not been a previous thread or two or three with commentary on LE SACRE in the hodson/archer 'reimagining'?
as noted, i'm no good at finding back discussion threads, and less and less reliable, memory-wise, but something tells me, BT must have had some past discussions of LE SACRE and Nijinsky, etc.
as noted, i'm no good at finding back discussion threads, and less and less reliable, memory-wise, but something tells me, BT must have had some past discussions of LE SACRE and Nijinsky, etc.
The BBC recently made a docu-drama about the events and people surrounding Rite of Spring called 'Riot at the Rite'. It includes a recreation of the first night performance (and audience reaction) and uses the The Finnish National Ballet with the Royal Ballet's Zenaida Yanowsky dancing the role of chosen maiden (it's completely worth watching for her performance alone). The choreography seems similar if not identical to the Joffrey reconstruction... sorry I can't be more specific about that. It's currently on google video in case anyone is interested.
QUOTE (smitty1931 @ Jun 12 2009, 08:43 AM) 
QUOTE (smitty1931 @ Jun 12 2009, 08:42 AM)
QUOTE (sandik @ Jun 11 2009, 07:36 PM)
Good and difficult questions, all. Sacre is a huge milestone in the history of dance, the kind of work that has achieved notoriety beyond the dance world. It has been labeled as a turning point in the development of western art, tagged as the "first real modern dance", used as a metaphor for the displacement of World War I, and blamed for the eventual dissolution of the Balelt Russe -- not in that order(!)
The original ballet only had a handful of performances, and did not last in permanent repertory. It was, though, the topic of considerable speculation, both academic and artistic. It was, in a way, like Woodstock -- people were proud to claim that they had been in the audience for the event. And like Woodstock, over time it has come to mean almost more as an event than as an actual artwork.
Several choreographers have made work to the score since its 1913 debut, and though some of them have lasted far longer in active repertories, none of them have made the same 'splash' as the original. Most of the dance world thought it was lost beyond retrieval, but historians Millicent Hodson and Kenneth Archer were not convinced it was hopeless. Many of the dancers who had been in the original production had taught what they remembered in various situations, and there were extant renderings of the sets and costumes. Hodson and Archer began to compile all this material, laying out sketches alongside the score. They knew that Marie Rambert, who Diaghilev had hired to assist Nijinsky analyse the score, had made copious notes, but they didn't actually find that document until they were almost finished with their compilation.
Robert Joffrey was an enthusiastic collector of anything having to do with the Ballet Russe -- he'd had Massine set some his early work on the company and encouraged Hodson and Archer to keep working on Sacre -- finally when they were ready to start staging, they worked first with the Joffrey. The version of the work they created, using the Rambert documents to check their work, is not a reconstruction of the original choreography so much as it is a new creation using all those original materials. I cannot say that it is the same ballet, but it is certainly the closest that we can get (time travel being what it is). And in some ways, the hullabaloo this restaging created in the dance world echoed the ruckus the original work inspired.
PBS broadcast a Dance in America program in the 1989, featuring extensive interviews with Hodson and Archer as well as a cleanly filmed version of the company in the ballet. Since then, H and A have staged the work on a few other companies, including the Paris Opera and the Maryinsky -- these have been filmed and broadcast in various places. (see here for some conversation about film versions) I don't know if anyone has it in their active repertory at this moment, but I imagine it is around and about in the Ballet Russe anniversary programming this year.
If you're interested in some of the history surrounding the work, I highly recommend Shelly Berg's "Le Sacre du Printemps: Seven Productions from Nijinsky to Martha Graham" It's out of print so you might have to interlibrary loan it (try you local college library), but she's an excellent historian and her descriptions of the different works are visceral and evocative.
Like most dance fanatics, you just have to mention Sacre to get my full attention -- it's a fascinating ballet.
The original ballet only had a handful of performances, and did not last in permanent repertory. It was, though, the topic of considerable speculation, both academic and artistic. It was, in a way, like Woodstock -- people were proud to claim that they had been in the audience for the event. And like Woodstock, over time it has come to mean almost more as an event than as an actual artwork.
Several choreographers have made work to the score since its 1913 debut, and though some of them have lasted far longer in active repertories, none of them have made the same 'splash' as the original. Most of the dance world thought it was lost beyond retrieval, but historians Millicent Hodson and Kenneth Archer were not convinced it was hopeless. Many of the dancers who had been in the original production had taught what they remembered in various situations, and there were extant renderings of the sets and costumes. Hodson and Archer began to compile all this material, laying out sketches alongside the score. They knew that Marie Rambert, who Diaghilev had hired to assist Nijinsky analyse the score, had made copious notes, but they didn't actually find that document until they were almost finished with their compilation.
Robert Joffrey was an enthusiastic collector of anything having to do with the Ballet Russe -- he'd had Massine set some his early work on the company and encouraged Hodson and Archer to keep working on Sacre -- finally when they were ready to start staging, they worked first with the Joffrey. The version of the work they created, using the Rambert documents to check their work, is not a reconstruction of the original choreography so much as it is a new creation using all those original materials. I cannot say that it is the same ballet, but it is certainly the closest that we can get (time travel being what it is). And in some ways, the hullabaloo this restaging created in the dance world echoed the ruckus the original work inspired.
PBS broadcast a Dance in America program in the 1989, featuring extensive interviews with Hodson and Archer as well as a cleanly filmed version of the company in the ballet. Since then, H and A have staged the work on a few other companies, including the Paris Opera and the Maryinsky -- these have been filmed and broadcast in various places. (see here for some conversation about film versions) I don't know if anyone has it in their active repertory at this moment, but I imagine it is around and about in the Ballet Russe anniversary programming this year.
If you're interested in some of the history surrounding the work, I highly recommend Shelly Berg's "Le Sacre du Printemps: Seven Productions from Nijinsky to Martha Graham" It's out of print so you might have to interlibrary loan it (try you local college library), but she's an excellent historian and her descriptions of the different works are visceral and evocative.
Like most dance fanatics, you just have to mention Sacre to get my full attention -- it's a fascinating ballet.
Thank you for your excellent post. I will try to obtain the Shelly Berg book. Smitty
Smitty, you asked about Monteux reminiscences, and I don't know about that, but the composer was there, and relying on my memory of what I've read -- or heard, as there was a recording for CBS/Sony of Stravinsky reading his little essay, Aprops Le Sacre -- he was deeply hurt by the musically conservative ballet audience's noisy rejection of the music before they'd even heard it through once! One person was even supposed to have called out scornfully, as the bassoon begins the piece playing high above its usual register, "What instrument is that?"
Soon after, Monteux conducted it again in a concert situation, and a different audience waited until the end to cheer wildly, and Stravinsky took applause after embracing the perspiring conductor: "It was the wettest hug of my life." The enthusiastic crowd carried the alarmed composer out into the street on their shoulders, with some police to protect him. So the story goes, when Diaghilev, who was jealous of any of his associates' success outside his company, heard about this, he said sneeringly to Stravinsky, "Our little Igor has to be escorted out of his concerts by the police, like a prize-fighter!"
Soon after, Monteux conducted it again in a concert situation, and a different audience waited until the end to cheer wildly, and Stravinsky took applause after embracing the perspiring conductor: "It was the wettest hug of my life." The enthusiastic crowd carried the alarmed composer out into the street on their shoulders, with some police to protect him. So the story goes, when Diaghilev, who was jealous of any of his associates' success outside his company, heard about this, he said sneeringly to Stravinsky, "Our little Igor has to be escorted out of his concerts by the police, like a prize-fighter!"
QUOTE (Jack Reed @ Jun 12 2009, 02:51 PM)
Smitty, you asked about Monteux reminiscences, and I don't know about that, but the composer was there, and relying on my memory of what I've read -- or heard, as there was a recording for CBS/Sony of Stravinsky reading his little essay, Aprops Le Sacre -- he was deeply hurt by the musically conservative ballet audience's noisy rejection of the music before they'd even heard it through once! One person was even supposed to have called out scornfully, as the bassoon begins the piece playing high above its usual register, "What instrument is that?"
Soon after, Monteux conducted it again in a concert situation, and a different audience waited until the end to cheer wildly, and Stravinsky took applause after embracing the perspiring conductor: "It was the wettest hug of my life." The enthusiastic crowd carried the alarmed composer out into the street on their shoulders, with some police to protect him. So the story goes, when Diaghilev, who was jealous of any of his associates' success outside his company, heard about this, he said sneeringly to Stravinsky, "Our little Igor has to be escorted out of his concerts by the police, like a prize-fighter!"
Soon after, Monteux conducted it again in a concert situation, and a different audience waited until the end to cheer wildly, and Stravinsky took applause after embracing the perspiring conductor: "It was the wettest hug of my life." The enthusiastic crowd carried the alarmed composer out into the street on their shoulders, with some police to protect him. So the story goes, when Diaghilev, who was jealous of any of his associates' success outside his company, heard about this, he said sneeringly to Stravinsky, "Our little Igor has to be escorted out of his concerts by the police, like a prize-fighter!"
A marvelous story, one that I had not heard before. I had the privilege to see Stravinsky conduct his opera Nightingale in Washington, D.C. When he came out on two crutches the entire audience stood in silent homage until he reached the podium and then broke out in cheers and applause. An unforgettable experience! Smitty
I think I know what you mean. That must have been some performance! Although some will dispute his conducting ability, for me Stravinsky's performances of his music always set the standard. It means so much more, says so much more from his hands, and I also still enjoy my few memories of seeing him at work on the podium. (I think a few other performers come close to his eloquence, in fairness.)
And, if this line of thought continues your own, you might like to know, if you don't already, the one surviving Stravinsky performance of music not his own, the Second Symphony of Tchaikovsky, recently processed in surprisingly good sound:
http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWork...ral/PASC101.php
And, if this line of thought continues your own, you might like to know, if you don't already, the one surviving Stravinsky performance of music not his own, the Second Symphony of Tchaikovsky, recently processed in surprisingly good sound:
http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWork...ral/PASC101.php
Smitty, I wrote a little about a great talk at the Harvard Conference in early May, that talked about that very first performance. The thread, started by Leonid, is also in Ballet History, and is called "Diaghilev Ballet Russe Centenary Celebration 2009, Diaghilev Lecture by Princess Nina Lobanov-Rostovsky"
If I can quote myself, since I don't know how to link topics, here's what I said, and I hope to add more at some point, but since I'm out of town now, I can't:
The tape I referred to, I believe is the same one that Jack Reed mentioned above. You should try and see if there is a printed or taped version of Prof. Kelly's talk -- many of your questions would be answered.
I have also seen a performance and the televised performance of the Joffrey's reconstruction (and attended talks by Hodson and Archer) and feel that their attempt is probably the best recreation of Nijinsky's work of genius that we will ever see.
If I can quote myself, since I don't know how to link topics, here's what I said, and I hope to add more at some point, but since I'm out of town now, I can't:
QUOTE
While a few of the topics were, for me, peripheral, most were right on the money, and fascinating. As Phenby mentioned, Thomas Forrest Kelly of harvard was a standout. He teaches a course called "Five First Nights," which is said to be one of the most popular in the University, and if his talk on April 16 was any indication, his popularity is deserved. Until the Time Machine that I ordered gets delivered (so I can GO to that first night) this will serve as a substitute.
What he did was to discuss the opening night of "The Rite of Spring," and talked to us as if we had been there! He kept saying, "you remember when..." which really drew people in. But his most important (for me) contribution was an illumination (with music and graphics) of how the rhythm worked in one particular very percussive section. If, for example, the section's chordal groupings were 9-2-6-3-4-5-3, and in the section of 9 chords the 4th and 7th chords were emphasized, he projected the score with each chord illuminated in when played, and the chords emphasized were red and the others yellow. That's not precise, but shows how he made the score and rhythms come to life. His energy and enthusiasm were amazing.
He also mentioned that Cechetti said that it was "done by 4 idiots," and thereafter referred to each of the creators (Nijinsky, Stravinsky, Roerich and Diaghilev) as "this idiot" etc.
Kelly feels that after the few performances of Nijinsky's "Rite" Stravinsky separated himself from the other "idiots" and tried to make it seem as if "Rite" was ALL his triumph. HE wrote the libretto, it was HIS idea, etc. He played a tape of I.S. speaking about it, that Kelly feels was read from written material, perhaps by Robert Kraft.
What he did was to discuss the opening night of "The Rite of Spring," and talked to us as if we had been there! He kept saying, "you remember when..." which really drew people in. But his most important (for me) contribution was an illumination (with music and graphics) of how the rhythm worked in one particular very percussive section. If, for example, the section's chordal groupings were 9-2-6-3-4-5-3, and in the section of 9 chords the 4th and 7th chords were emphasized, he projected the score with each chord illuminated in when played, and the chords emphasized were red and the others yellow. That's not precise, but shows how he made the score and rhythms come to life. His energy and enthusiasm were amazing.
He also mentioned that Cechetti said that it was "done by 4 idiots," and thereafter referred to each of the creators (Nijinsky, Stravinsky, Roerich and Diaghilev) as "this idiot" etc.
Kelly feels that after the few performances of Nijinsky's "Rite" Stravinsky separated himself from the other "idiots" and tried to make it seem as if "Rite" was ALL his triumph. HE wrote the libretto, it was HIS idea, etc. He played a tape of I.S. speaking about it, that Kelly feels was read from written material, perhaps by Robert Kraft.
The tape I referred to, I believe is the same one that Jack Reed mentioned above. You should try and see if there is a printed or taped version of Prof. Kelly's talk -- many of your questions would be answered.
I have also seen a performance and the televised performance of the Joffrey's reconstruction (and attended talks by Hodson and Archer) and feel that their attempt is probably the best recreation of Nijinsky's work of genius that we will ever see.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.