THE Sadler's Wells Ballet gives a bill of three works
first created for—and partly by— Diaghilev, in honour of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his death. La Boutique Fantasque and Le Trlcorne are familiar pieces; the novelty is The Fire Bird which, in 1910, added the choreography of Fokine to the decor of Golovine and multiplied the result by the music of Stravinsky, thus producing a minor masterpiece of Early Diaghilev Ballet. The improved designs made in 1926 by Gontcharova are used here, Ernest Ansermet conducts, and the choreography is a careful reconstruction from the fabulous memory of Serge Grig- oriev, who stage-managed the initial, and many subsequent, performances. Margot Fonteyn as the Fire Bird and Svetlana Beriosova as the Tsarevna give strong inter- pretations, partly coached by Karsavina, the original dancer of the title role.
The cramped stage and indifferent light- ing were minor disabilities and the entire cast danced and acted worthily; yet this one-time classic does not spring to con- vincing life despite the careful midwifery that has attended its re-birth. Can it be that' an essentially Russian story for ballet, first performed by Russian dancers, requires al thousand nuances of characterisation, of movement, of atmosphere, such as can be attained only with difficulty by dancers bred outside Russia? These characters demand a style of dancing and acting whose subtleties and distinctions are probably only attainable b artists who have Lomon- nosoff and Pushkin and the old Russian peasant skazki, or fairytales, in \ their blood.
Miss Beriosova nearly hits off all that the character needs though some of her dancing lacked its customary intoxicating lyricism; Miss Fonteyn dances almost all the time in one key, stresses heavily all angular move- ments, and seems obsessed with the staccato quality that is a characteristic of bird- movement only occasionally. Michael Somes as the Tsarevich was boldly hand- some and adventurous but lackbd the regal touch.
* *
At the College of Art the Diaghilev Exhibition has assembled a wide range of designs, music-scores, portraits, photo- graphs, costumes, and literary works identi- fying or celebrating the talent of the greatest theatre amateur of the century. A lot of pains have been taken to set these objects in 'suitable' mock interiors, or against appro- priately correct furniture, wallpaper, etc. At times this individual system of decor comes perilously near to smothering the real value of these exhibits, by reducing them to parts of a composite construction; this construction being an expression of the exhibitor's idea of what the 'Diaghilev Movement' meant within the European culture of its day. The astonishing beauties and felicities achieved at times under the Diaghilev regime occurred amidst desola- tions of chi-chi, ephemeral or merely smart work by various painters, idea-men, com- posers and choreographers who had little to give to the movement. A little too strong a leaning towards the chi-chi marks the exhibition which, however, holds so many excellent designs for costumes (all else apart) as to be well worth anybody's visit.
A. V. COTON
Previous page
