In Defense of "Etudes"

by George Jackson
copyright 2008 by George Jackson

“Etudes”, Harald Lander’s etude of 1948, is a ballet that critics today love to hate with some reason. Intended to display ballet training and ballet history, it also tests the character and caliber of the company performing it. Often these goals seem at cross purposes in the productions we see now, sixty years after the work’s premiere in Copenhagen by the Royal Danish Ballet.

The action of “Etudes” has consistency at its start. From the five basic positions of the balletic body, the technical exercises proceed to barre work. Bending, flexing and stretching are done simply, thoroughly and with just enough repetition to suggest actual classroom practice. The sequences involving plie, foot and leg figuration, extension and balance then magnify. The scene is still the studio but this is no longer an ordinary class. It takes on a grander dimension. On occasion this change can seem like a blossoming. Lander’s sequences are not without a certain humor as they gain amplitude and increase in complexity, but generally now that’s not brought out. Then, suddenly, a history lesson distracts from the class-to-stage path.

Sylphs from the Romantic Ballet perform. Their limpid style isn’t obviously derived from the “master class” moments into which the technical drill that began “Etudes” evolved. Gears had shifted once the sylphs appeared, and that was something of a jolt. By itself, though, this Scene Romantique with its female Pas de Quatre followed by an Adagio d’Amour does make valid points about the ballets of the early 19th Century.

Back to - well not quite the classroom. Technical progress and stage history then become a bit mixed up as “Etudes” continues. Yes, in fact the Romantic era in ballet was followed by a Classical period and to represent stage classicism in “Etudes” Lander has a Grand Trio that he cleverly casts with one ballerina to two danseurs. Yes, classroom technique did intrude onto the stage in the late 19th Century, particularly wherever the Italian ballerina dominated. Still, Lander - who earlier in “Etudes” allowed classroom combinations to magically metamorphose into something imposing and then, nevertheless, carefully distinguished between that and theatrical dancing - leaves us very much in a limbo. Are we looking at a studio workout or at a performance on a stage during the later portions of “Etudes” as it builds to a climax? That climax, though, with its crescendos of speed and expansions of space, excites.

Audiences adore that ending, and don’t seem to mind what leads up to it. Companies appreciate the opportunity “Etudes” gives them to use a fairly large group of dancers: corps – both male and female, soloists and principals. Shrewdly cast, “Etudes” can make a company seem stronger than it is basically. Frequently programmed, “Etudes” can serve to strengthen dancers and unify a company.

Ever since “Etudes” emerged from Copenhagen via Paris (1952) onto the world’s stages, managers have wanted to replace it with another ballet that would similarly serve and challenge the dancers and inform and arouse the public. They hoped the new work would be less mixed and messy. Remember “Ballet School”, which Asaf Messerer made for Brussels (1961) and the Bolshoi (1962)? It was logical but hadn’t the charge. Pop choreographers (Stanton Welch, Jorma Elo) have tried updating the “Etudes” idea and ended up being gimmicky. Arguably, even the subtle Merce Cunningham tried his hand at a sort of “Etudes” but the result differed.

“Etudes” is likely to become Lander’s sole monument, which is a pity. I remember with pleasure one of his works for the Paris Opera, “Printemps a Vienne” (1954). It was a vibrant hybrid, an intermediate between the Massine and Balanchine types of symphonic ballet – the music being Franz Schubert’s second. Others have praised the elegant modernism of Lander’s Bartok – the “Concerto aux etoiles” (Paris Opera, 1956). Imperfect as “Etudes” is, and limited, I’d still rather see it than much else that ballet companies offer.