Ballet
The Royal Schizoid
By CLIVE BARNES THERE are two Royal Ballets. In addition to the Royal Ballet that appears at Covent Garden, there is another Royal Ballet which is usually on tour; recently, for example, in Australia and New Zealand, and now having just ended a brief round of the English provinces. You certainly wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them from the way they are billed at your local theatre. Covent Garden trust, and I hope, that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from the way they dance. But like that dear old queen of the. London peepholes, the Windmill Theatre, the Royal Ballet now runs ea an 'A' company and a 'B' company to share among its widespread fans.
It is understood that these schizoid ten- dencies in the Royal Ballet are merely a passing phase. Indeed, it is said that even now the patient is on Dame Ninette de Valois's consulting couch and will within a year, or less, be sorted out. But you may ask how did it get that way, and the answer is mildly historical. In 1945 the Sadler's Wells Ballet (the old name for the Royal Ballet before they became Top People) was invited to leave its extinct mineral springs in Finsbury and move
into the Royal Opera House, so giving the projected Covent Garden opera company sornel ; faint chance of balancing its budget. A second ballet company was formed, partly to fulfill opera-ballet commitments for the Saciler'S, Wells Opera, partly to keep faith with the founding-mother Lilian Baylis's conception of 'ballet for the people', and finally to provide, a cadet stage for the development of young dancers and choreographers, and a stepping' stone between the Ballet School and the company at Covent Garden. Eventually this stepping-stone hung too heavily around the necks of the Sadler's Wells Governors, and in,; 1957 the Sadler's Wells Theatre Ballet broke; away from Sadler's Wells and, like its big; brother, came under the protecting wing of Covent Garden. Earlier in the same year the, Sadler's Wells Ballet had become trans' mogrified by letters patent into the Royal. Ballet; and no distinction was made in thC nomenclature of the two companies. Thai `all Royal Ballets were equal' was, in effect, bill-posted on hoardings throughout the provinces.
Dame Ninette de Valois a year ago an nounced her policy of 'integration' for the company—one jumbo package deal of a Royal; Ballet, capable of being divided when arid'
ty
here necessary, but deep down where it ronatters just one happily corporate whole. As a
tep towards this end 'guest artists' (this
'gar term is mine, not Covent Garden's) ag were flown out to Australia from time to time to lead what for convenience might be called ) the second company, and as reverse lease-lend a handful of that company's more promising rd soloists were recently given a chance to show as their paces at Covent Garden. Now in August 1,6 both sections of the Royal Ballet are to join at together in a Covent Garden season. So it a; might seem that integration has been achieved. be I hope so, but I doubt it.
th I expect that however many token gestures he are made towards integration—both corn- panies appearing on the same programme at he Covent Garden but in the watertight corn- of partrnenth of different ballets; one special new tY work being produced with a cast drawn of initially from both troupes; stars from one Id company 'guesting' with the other; and all of that kind of thing—there will still be, for at vie least another year, two quite separate groups le of cops de ballet and soloists. One group based
in London, one doing the milking rounds (what
was that old Gingold joke about tour de force Ir and force de tour?), both basically different in personnel, probably with different salary scales, and in the touring group the plum classic roles in the full-length ballets chiefly taken by visiting artists from Covent Garden. That is how my Old Moore's Almanack puts It, and if true, I think it is a mistake. And yet not for the obvious reason that provincial theatregoers might be misled as to which twin had the Margot, or even which company was the grandmother!
Once we have dispensed with equality and, as all good post-Orwellian animals must, amended our slogan to 'some Royal Ballets are more equal than others', I am not particularly fearful that the touring section will be un- worthy of its title. Both the First and the Second Divisions of this particular League are pretty formidable, and it would not be impossible for a team from the Second to outplay a team from the First in the Cup Final of a performance. But—and here is my objection to non-integration—the working conditions and opportunities are hopelessly unfairly balanced against the tourers. Re- voltingly underpaid, deplorably over-worked, living out of suit-cases in dingy theatrical lodgings, their existence is no career I would recommend to any child of mine.
Finally there is another vital aspect of this Problem, so far as I can see overlooked by Uncle Covent Garden and Auntie Arts Coun- cil alike. In the days of the old Sadler's Wells Theatre Ballet there was in existence a national ballet troupe capable of providing the outlet for experiment with new choreography and new choreographers. Now we have two companies of similar scope and dimensions, neither is well-fitted to carry out this essential Work. The obvious answer here is for the Royal Ballet to abandon that particular ship, and for the Arts Council to treble the com- parative pittance it gives to the Ballet Rambert —if necessary making some appropriate adjustment to the present Covent Garden subsidy. The Ballet Rambert could then also, in part, be integrated with the general scheme
of a national ballet, providing it with the laboratory it needs for the future. There is altogether too little co-operation on all sides between British ballet organisations. Anyone would think they were opera companies the way they jealously keep themselves to them- selves.
Previous page
