As I watch Toumanova today, I see but an extension in time, space and years of the “baby ballerina” in her adult personality; there is still an extravagant and dazzling glamor; there is still steely technique; there is still a childlike naivete about her, even when she tries to be ever so sophisticated; everything about her is still dramatic and dramatized. And there is still “Mamochka,” in constant attendance, helping, criticizing, urging; and although Tamara has been happily married for a decade or so, “Mamochka” is still the watchdog. Many ballet “mamas” are not only difficult, but some of them are overtly disliked. Toumanova’s mother is another category. She has been at all times a fine and constructive help to Tamara, both with practical assistance and theoretical advice.
Tamara’s approach to the dance is beautiful to observe. Her devotion to ballet amounts almost to a religion. Nothing under the sun is more important to her than her work, her attendance at lessons. Nothing ever is permitted to interfere with these.
I firmly believe that such is her concentration and devotion to her work that, if a fire were to break out back-stage during a performance while Tamara was in the midst of her fabulous fouetées, she would continue with them, completely unperturbed, more intent on fouetées than on fire.
The Montreal discussions with the Ballet Theatre direction on the subject of guest stars produced no understanding of the situation; only the tiresomely reiterated, “It’s a sacrilege! It’s a crime!”
What was a “crime” then, was a sheer necessity. Let us look, for a moment, at the Ballet Theatre situation today, after it is no longer under my management, but entirely on its own, responsible for its own destiny. During the last year of our association, following the resignation of J. Alden Talbot as managing director, as I have pointed out, Lucia Chase, who pays the bills, and Oliver Smith became joint managing directors. They were running the company when we came to a parting of the ways. It was they who protested most bitterly over the guest-star system. Now, with the company, after thirteen years of existence, presumably established, Miss Chase is firmly perpetrating the same “crime” herself. I certainly do not object to it. But surely what was a “sacrilege,” what was a “crime” at the time I was responsible for their perpetration, must, now that the Ballet Theatre is on its own, no longer be either sacrilegious or criminal.
Another recurring trouble source and the cause of many a contentious discussion was the question of new productions. The arguments and conferences over them were seemingly endless. Now the question of new productions is one of the most vital and important in ballet management, and one of the most pressing. All ballet management contracts call for a ballet company to supply a certain number of new works each year. The reason for this is that there must be a constant flow of new ballets in a repertoire in order to attract the attention of both the critics and the public. Standard works form the core of any repertoire and at least one is necessary on every programme. But ballet itself, in order to keep from becoming stagnant, must refresh itself by constantly expanding its repertoire. Frequently, in contrast to the undying classics, nothing can be deader than last years “novelty.” My contractual arrangement provides that the management shall have the right either to accept or reject new work as being acceptable or otherwise.
As time went on, many of the new works produced, some of which were accepted by me against my sounder judgment, proved, as I feared, to be unacceptable to the general public throughout the country. It should be clearly understood that ballet cannot live on New York alone. America is a large continent, and the hinterland audiences, while lacking, perhaps, some of the quality of sophistication of metropolitan audiences, are highly selective and quite as critical today as are their New York counterparts. A New York success is by no means an assurance of a like reception in Kalamazoo or Santa Barbara. Ballet needs both Santa Barbara and Kalamazoo, as it needs New York. The building of repertoire should be the joint task of the company direction and the management—since their desired ends are the same, viz., the successful continuation of the organization. Repertoire is a responsible and exceedingly demanding task.
It certainly required no clairvoyance on my part to discern a very definite antagonism toward any repertoire suggestions I offered. Certain types of ballets were badly needed and were not forthcoming. Perhaps I can most clearly illustrate my point by recapitulating the Ballet Theatre repertoire at the time we parted company.
There were: Fokine’s heritage—Les Sylphides, Carnaval, (no longer in repertoire), Petroushka (no longer in repertoire), Spectre de la Rose (no longer in repertoire), plus two creations, Bluebeard, and Russian Soldier (no longer in repertoire). Andrée Howard had staged Death and the Maiden and Lady Into Fox (both dropped before I took over the company). Bronislava Nijinska had revived La Fille Mal Gardée and The Beloved One (no longer in the repertoire). Anton Dolin had revived Swan Lake, Giselle (now performed in a Balanchine version), Princess Aurora (now touched up by Balanchine), and had created Quintet (dropped after the first season), Capriccioso (dropped in the second season), Pas de Quatre (now done in a version by Keith Lester), and Romantic Age (no longer in the repertoire). Leonide Massine had revived The Fantastic Toy Shop, Capriccio Espagnol, and The Three-Cornered Hat (all out of repertoire). He had produced three new works, Don Domingo, Aleko, and Mlle. Angot, none of which was retained in the repertoire. Antony Tudor had revived The Lilac Garden, Judgment of Paris, Dark Elegies, Gala Performance, and had produced Pillar of Fire, Romeo and Juliet, Dim Lustre, and Undertow, none of which remain. Agnes de Mille had produced Black Ritual, Three Virgins and a Devil, and Tally-Ho, none of which is actively in the repertoire. José Fernandez had produced a Spanish work, Goyescas, which lasted only the first season. David Lichine had revived Graduation Ball, and had produced Helen of Troy and Fair at Sorotchinsk (the latter no longer in repertoire). Adolph Bolm had revived his Ballet Mecanique (first season life only), produced Peter and the Wolf, a perennial stand-by, and the short-lived version of Firebird. John Taras had contributed Graziana, and Simon Semenoff a version of Coppélia and Gift of the Magi, neither of the three existing today. Jerome Robbins’s Fancy Free and Interplay remain while his Facsimile has been forgotten. Balanchine had revived Apollo, Errante, and had produced Waltz Academy, all of which have disappeared.
In order to save the curious reader the trouble of any computation, this represents a total of fifty-one ballets either produced during my association with Ballet Theatre or else available at the time we joined hands. From this total of fifty-one, a round dozen are performed, more or less, today. A cursory glance will reveal that the repertoire was always deficient in classical works. They are the backbone of ballet. It is to be regretted that the Tudor ballets, which were the particular glory of Ballet Theatre, have been lost to the public.