I have always enjoyed the Ballet Russes and the works that the dance company produces. A few nights back on Friday, May 29th, 1926, I attended a premier performance of the Ballet Russes at Paris’s very own Theatre Sarah-Bernhardt.[1] I had expected a wonderful evening but ended up greatly regretting my decision to attend this production. The company premiered the work Pastorale by Georges Auric. The strange choreography, weak plot, and the thinness of the composition itself, made Pastorale a disappointment.
I had looked forward to witnessing yet another fascinating work produced by the Ballet Russes. It’s clear to me now that I should just have gone to the showing of Samson et Dalila at le l’Opera that Friday evening rather than Pastorale.[2] I had attended the previous commission of Monsieur Auric’s work, Les Matelots, which premiered last year (1925), also premiered by the Ballet Russes.[3] The dance company introduced me to a continuation of life modernism [4] with the simplicity of the choreography as well as the catchy composition in Les Matelots. I should note for my lesser-informed audiences that “life modernism” is simply the glorification of everyday occurrences. Regardless, I expected the same kind of experience from Les Matelots in Pastorale.
As I understand, George Balanchine is a rising choreographer in the world of dance. The fact that a new ballet choreographed by a newcomer intrigued me. The Ballet Russes has already acclaimed itself as a company willing to push the limit in their performances. With contemporary works to support the company’s past productions and the acquirement of Balanchine, my expectations were set high. I was not prepared for the display I was shown in Pastorale. My colleague, Cyril Beaumont, eloquently reflected that Pastorale had “very little dancing…except for a solo rendered by Dubrovska” would played the film star and leading principal ballerina.[5] I agree with Madame Beaumont’s impression, but I’d like to further proclaim that although the choreography wasn’t to my taste, the ballet was impressive and scandalous.
The ballerinas were subjected to high extensions and unusual lifts that insinuated promiscuous behavior.[6] Classical ballet utilizes lifts to emulate grace and pure affection. Pastorale’s lifts were purposefully altered to appear crude and exaggerated. Never in my life had I witnessed a developpe appear sexual until Auric’s ballet. There’s no doubt in my mind that Balanchine is a modern choreographer.[7] The man adds clear promiscuity in his work but also incorporates acrobatics into the mix. Rather than a traditional pas de deux, the company was throwing themselves in acrobatic feats of athleticism.[8] Truly the movements were complex but rather than dance, the ballet seemed like a circus. Impressive? Yes. Dance? No. Balanchine’s modernist attributes helped lead Pastorale to be an utter failure.
Choreography aside, the plot of Pastorale wasn’t interesting and failed to connect with audience members. Pastorale consists of twelve scenes surroundings the characters of the film star (Felia Dubrovka), the telegraph boy (Serge Lifar), the young lady (Tamera Gerergera), and the director (Leon Woizikovsky).[9] The ballet opens to a scene introducing the telegraph boy to the audience. While the young boy is away, a young girl plays a prank on the boy, taking the mail he is delivering. A film crew enters the stage and begins filming proceeding the girl’s exit. There is a random love affair between the star and the telegraph boy and a “scandal” comes to pass. In the end, the young girl who attempted to prank the telegraph boy, ends up riding away with him.[10] I enjoy plot lines that are relatable and shed light on modern day life. On the other hand, Pastorale did a poor job of welding everything together. Clearly, “the story matters little and is not very clearly told.”[11] Even the librettist of the ballet, Boris Kochno, admits that Pastorale’s “action was confused, and the plot… was incomprehensible to the audience.”[12] I would think that the producers and patrons of the ballet would be able to foretell the fate of Pastorale if even the librettist admits obvious faults in the work.
Lastly, the music of Pastorale was weak and left more to be desired. The composer Georges Auric did not do a shabby job in this composition. The simplicity of the melodic line allows individuals to follow the tune and comprehend the mood. I return to the concept of life modernism. Auric glamorizes everyday life through uncomplicated counterpoint. The Prelude to Pastorale begins with a flourish but then immediately switches to the main theme. The strong percussion entrance in the prelude is exciting but that excitement is passed down into the strings. There is hardly any harmony within the orchestra. In the Allegro commodo, the melody is bouncy and simple, symbolizing the way of life of the average Parisian. Still, Auric’s work did not stand out enough.
Never was there a moment of deep thought or emotion in Pastorale. Indeed the work just seemed to go on and on. It was as though every note was frivolous and unimportant. I refer to Nicolas Nabokov’s statement that Pastorale is “probably the silliest ballet produced in the twenties by” the Ballet Russes.[13] Why? Because the ballet’s “inherent weakness of design and its thin and tiring music.”[14] The signature melody from the Allegro commodo returned over and over again and a new theme was never introduced. If every piece stays bouncy and light, you have a sleeping audience. The Lento ma non troppo, for instance. This slow movement seemed no different from the Andantino con moto. Both are slower, yes, but there are minimal harmonies and a single tune is repeated endlessly. Such a drawn out song is boring and exhausting. Perhaps creating a frivolous production was what Auric had in mind when composing the ballet. Auric clearly praises daily life in his silly composing yet has succeeded to bore audience members.
Speaking of which, the audience I was apart of yesternight seemed to share my speculation over Pastorale. Diaghilev, the company’s artistic director, has received many a complaint about the ballet if I am to be correct. Apparently, Lady Diana Cooper in England has advised Diaghilev to exclude Pastorale in this upcoming Friday performance.[15] Such a bad reception is detrimental to the company and Diaghilev himself. The company needs to re-evaluate their repertoire decisions if they wish to keep drawing in exclusive and elite crowds.
It is hard to leave a theatre with crushed expectations. As I have said, I have always enjoyed the Ballet Russes. In fact, that very night that Pastorale premiered, the company also performed Petrouchka and Les Biches. I greatly enjoyed those two ballets. It was a mistake to pair Pastorale with the great first-class ballets. Indeed, Pastorale is “a second class ballet.”[16] Although, the work’s questionable choreography, lack of a fluid plotline, and sleep-inducing composition, left Pastorale underwhelming and altogether tiring to watch. Next time I will think twice before earnestly rushing in the theatre to obtain a good seat for a performance from the Ballet Russes.
[1] Le Figaro, column Courrier Musical Aujourd’hui, 29 May 1926
[2] Le Figaro, column Courrier Musical Aujourd’hui, 29 May 1926
[3] Garafola, Lynn. Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pg. 253
[4] Garafola, Lynn. Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pg. 110
[5] Schouvaloff, Alexander. “Pedro Pruna.” In The Art of the Ballet Russes, 287. London, 1997
[6] Garafola, Lynn. Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pg. 135
[7] In today’s standards, George Balanchine is considered to be associated with Neoclassicism. However, in Paris in the twenties, Balanchine was seen as a modernist. Garafola, Lynn. Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989, pg. 135
[8] Schouvaloff, Alexander. “Pedro Pruna.” In The Art of the Ballet Russes, 287. London, 1997
[9] Schouvaloff, Alexander. “Pedro Pruna.” In The Art of the Ballet Russes, 287. London, 1997
[10] Schouvaloff, Alexander. “Pedro Pruna.” In The Art of the Ballet Russes, 287. London, 1997
[11] The Russian Ballet. La Pastorale. Times, 24 June 1926, pg. 14
[12] Schouvaloff, Alexander. “Pedro Pruna.” In The Art of the Ballet Russes, 287. London, 1997
[13] Schouvaloff, Alexander. “Pedro Pruna.” In The Art of the Ballet Russes, 288. London, 1997
[14] Schouvaloff, Alexander. “Pedro Pruna.” In The Art of the Ballet Russes, 288. London, 1997
[15] Lady Diana Cooper, Telegram to Serge Diaghilev, 4 March 1927
[16] Schouvaloff, Alexander. “Pedro Pruna.” In The Art of the Ballet Russes, 288. London, 1997
Other Sources
“Naxos Music Library – Invaluable Resource for Music …” Accessed November 17, 2015. http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/.
Anderson, Keith, ed. “Georges Auric.” Accessed November 17, 2015. http://www.naxos.com/mainsite/blurbs_reviews.asp?item_code=8.225136&catNum=225136&filetype=About this Recording&language=English.
Georges Auric, Letters to Serge Diaghilev, 7 April 1924