BWW Reviews: Ballet in Cinema from Emerging Pictures Presents ESMERALDA

Being a student of history is enlightening. You can learn about so many new things that may, or may not, be of interest. I felt that way about Esmeralda. I've heard about it. I know there's an Esmeralda variation that's sometimes done at competitions. But it's gone beneath my radar. So, with a great deal of trepidation, I went to see the Ballet in Cinema from Emerging Pictures film on April 22. After watching the performance, transmitted from the Bolshoi Ballet, in what is billed as a new production, I can understand the reason for the ballet's infrequent showings.

Esmeralda is loosely based on Victor Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris. If you remember the novel at all, it's the character of Quasimodo, the hunchback, who sticks in your memory. Here, he does not dance; it's a character part. Too bad, since he should be the focal point, but in the ballet he's relegated to the periphery, although he does have his moments to shine.

Like many 19^th century story ballets, this one has a convoluted history. The ballet was originally presented in London on March 9, 1844, libretto and choreography by Jules Perrot, with music by Cesare Pugni. It was a prestige production, starring Carlotta Grisi, the creator of Giselle. What could be more prestigious than that? Perrot later mounted a production in St. Petersburg, obtaining the services of another celebrated ballet diva, Fanny Elssler, who had great technique, but not the same pedigree of a ballerina whose name was associated with Giselle. I'll bet she felt miffed. As was often the case, Marius Petipa got involved with his own production in 1886 for Virginia Zucchi, known as "the Divine Zucchi" and "the Divine Virginia." Does that put her on equal footing with the Divine Miss M? Petipa later revived the work in 1899 for the vastly talented, but inordinately temperamental, prima ballerina assoluta, Mathilde Kschessinskaya. While Petipa admired Kschessinskaya's technique, he didn't hold her in high affection as a person. Perhaps this is why he choreographed few new roles for her, preferring to revive already existing productions and change different variations to fit her talent. It was said that once Petipa changed the choreography for Kschessinskaya, no one else could execute it, that's how difficult it was.

You think that's the end? Not so fast. Other productions followed over the next 60 years, none remaining in the repertoire of any company. This new production, unveiled a few years ago at the Bolshoi with choreography by Yuri Burlaka and Vasily Medvedev, utilizes Pugni's (and other composers') music, while retaining the story of the original libretto. The results are decidedly mixed, because everyone will view this ballet through the eye of his own experience with dance, mime, music, and spectacle.

Esmeralda is the kind of ballet that Balanchine would have excerpted in 30 minutes, re-titling it Esmeralda Variations. It would have made a great showcase for super technicians such as Patricia Wilde or Merrill Ashley. But this production gives us the whole story, so let me try to condense it as best I can. Try not to laugh, although I'm sure you will.

Esmeralda is about a gypsy girl who dances in squares, bangs her tambourines and wears what looks like designer rags. Watching those costumes, I yearned for her to break into a rendition of Second Hand Esmeralda, but it would not have made much sense. To cut to the chase, Esmeralda promises to marry Pierre, a man condemned to the gallows. Then she falls in love with Phoebus, the captain of the guard, who is betrothed to Fleur de Lys. Esmeralda is coveted by Claude Frollo, the archdeacon. We know he's a villain because he wears black and is often raising his arm. Frollo has a henchman, Quasimodo, who carries out some of Claude's dirtier machinations, but he really has a kind heart. At the wedding of Phoebus and Fleur there is an overly long extended dance sequence, where a rendition of Bei Mir Bist du Schoen would have been preferable, but the Andrews Sisters or Ella Fitzgerald don't appear. Then Esmeralda comes in with her shawl, prompting Fleur to hurl her ring to the floor and call off the wedding. Esmeralda and Phoebus pledge their love once again, but he is killed and Esmeralda is led to the gallows for his murder. That is, until Phoebus turns up alive, prompting everyone to run around until Quasimodo kills Claude, after which they live happily ever after. So it ends on a high note, although Phoebus does not warble, "Of thee I sing, baby," to Esmeralda. Perhaps she was expecting "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes."

I could go on and keep you entertained for a long time, but I'll stop there. The ballet is really nothing more than a showcase for a ballerina's skills, and here I must hurl bouquets at the feet of Maria Alexandrova, a dancer I know by name, but nothing else. What precision, what dazzling footwork, what superb line in adagio and in her various solos! Why has she not been invited by ABT? She possesses every skill one could expect from a consummate ballerina. No, she is not a dancer--she is a BALLERINA, a station far removed from the domain of just any ordinary dancer. And she doesn't flaunt it. It is contained within the performance. She demonstrated her technique and her acting chops with her arms, her torso-her entire being. But she does not overdo or overextend the technical prowess. Why should she? It's visible.

The other dancers, Denis Savin, Ruslan Skvotsov, Yekaterina Krysanova, Anastasia Stashkevich and Vyacheslav Lopatin were all excellent, but this is a star turn. Make no mistakes about it. Without a true star, a great ballerina, there would be no reason for this ballet to be hauled out of mothballs.

While I applaud the Bolshoi for taking the initiative for letting us see Esmeralda, I wish there were other options for them. Yes, they are the archivists of great works. But Esmeralda does not even remotely come close to that. It is a minor work that, I suppose, should be maintained and scheduled between other, far more worthwhile, choreographic endeavors. And, as I said before, it's a part of ballet history. Maybe minor history, but even minor history does play a part. Think about it. Could Petipa have created Sleeping Beauty without having first done Esmeralda?

To post a comment, you must register and login.