DANCE : Bringing Back Balanchine : New York City Ballet salutes its founder-choreographer with an ambitious series re-creating 73 of his works

NEW YORK —  “I don’t have a past. I have a continuous present. The past is part of the present, just as the future is. We exist in time,” George Balanchine once said. Ten years after his death (at 79, on April 30, 1983), Balanchine is widely considered the century’s seminal classical choreographer and he remains a dominant force in ballet’s present, even as the company he founded prepares to look back at the past in a big way. This week, the New York City Ballet launches a Balanchine Celebration that will re-examine his astonishing career by presenting 73 of his ballets in chronological order.

It is a monumental undertaking--the repertory for the eight-week event is nearly twice as extensive as during a regular NYCB season--as well as a momentous occasion. Ever since his death, critics, faithful audiences and dancers have wondered about the continuity and future of Balanchine’s ballets. Would they survive? And in what form? How would they be danced now that his galvanizing presence was gone? In what direction would his company, which he had always nurtured with new ballets, now head?

From now until June 27, the company will be answering some of these questions as it demonstrates the variety, sophistication and durability of what this emigre Georgian created. While the celebration necessarily omits his considerable achievements on Broadway and in film, it does span virtually his entire accomplishment on the ballet stage.

The first program includes the two surviving works he made as the choreographer for Serge Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes. Balanchine was still in his mid-20s when he produced “Apollo” (1928) and “Prodigal Son” (1929)--ballets that continue to be danced by companies worldwide. Sharing the program is “Serenade,” the 1935 Tchaikovsky ballet that inaugurated his American career. As well as any subsequent Balanchine ballet, it illustrates his ability to synthesize what has come before--in his case, the pristine classicism of Marius Petipa--into a new, completely contemporary style.

As the celebration continues, it will trace his prolific path through various short-lived companies leading up to the founding of New York City Ballet in 1948 (the May 12 performance will re-create the company’s inaugural program). The abundance of enduring works he made during the company’s first decades, when he sometimes offered four premieres a season, will give way to the larger-scaled ballets he made to suit the company’s new home at the New York State Theater, followed by the late works (such as “Robert Schumann’s Davidsbundlertanze” and “Mozartiana”) marked by distilled emotions and hints of mortality.

A whirlwind of seminars, lectures and exhibitions has been scheduled to complement the celebration. Former NYCB dancers, former Balanchine wives and other longtime associates are examining his achievements and sharing their memories. Vintage films of his ballets, often as performed by the original casts, are being screened. The anniversary is being observed by other American companies as well as abroad. Last week, both the Paris Opera Ballet and Royal Danish Ballet presented Balanchine galas.

If the effect of all this activity is to present Balanchine as a historical figure, the celebration should also counteract that impression. His ballets remain the mainstay of NYCB’s repertory, although they are increasingly performed alongside recent works by other choreographers, and the vast array of roles they offer continues to challenge today’s dancers. Ballet troupes throughout America and Europe, as well as Korea and China, all perform his works. Even the Kirov Ballet, after decades of isolation from Balanchine’s choreography, now dances four of his works.

“When you dance a Balanchine ballet, you feel like you’ve been handed a gift,” says Stephanie Saland, a NYCB principal dancer who joined the company in 1972. “They’re self-revealing. You can’t miss the eloquence, the simplicity, the clarity and the beauty of what you’re doing.”

Saland is one of the steadily shrinking number of dancers in the company who have vivid memories of Balanchine as teacher and mentor. Retirements and accelerated turnover during the past decade have considerably reshaped the roster. A growing percentage of the dancers has been selected and nurtured by Peter Martins, the former principal dancer who now directs the company.

It is Martins, 46, who bears the burden of following in the footsteps of an acknowledged genius and navigating a course between preserving a unique heritage and sustaining the company’s contemporary focus. As a choreographer whose ballets have been the main source of NYCB’s premieres in recent years, he has always faced a daunting comparison. Singled out by Balanchine as his successor in the 1970s and thrust into his new role while still at the height of his dancing career, Martins “is not in an enviable position,” as Saland observes. He has had to adapt to his position very publicly.

In case he was not already aware of the burdens and expectations he faced, there were frequent “Ballet After Balanchine” articles to remind him. “The City Ballet’s future, and possibly the future of classical ballet in America, hang on Martins’ management of Balanchine’s legacy,” Deborah Trustman wrote in the New York Times Magazine a year and a half after Balanchine’s death. Around that time, writing for the New Republic, Harris Green reiterated the challenge Martins faced: “The company must maintain its reputation of being the most creative performing arts institution in the world by performing new works, and it must maintain Balanchine’s ballets in a manner worthy of them.”

In a way, this all-Balanchine season, for all the extra demands it is placing on the company’s dancers, musicians and staff, is a respite for Martins. With the entire focus on Balanchine, the burden of providing new ballets is lifted for the moment. Those detractors who have complained that NYCB performs too little Balanchine will necessarily be silenced. There remains, however, the nagging question of how the ballets are danced compared to the way they looked under Balanchine’s own scrutiny.

At various times since 1983, there have been critics who proclaimed that NYCB is dancing better than ever and others who lamented a decline in quality. Martins has taken every opportunity to stress how thoroughly the company rehearses the Balanchine repertory, and speaks confidently about how it is danced under his tenure.

“I emphasize what was important to him--primarily speed and energy of the limbs,” Martins said recently during a break between rehearsals.

He turns defensive when asked about some of the critics’ complaints, such as a lapse in the distinctive musical approach Balanchine cultivated.

“I don’t think for one minute that people are dancing less musically than they did in his time,” he responds. “I really don’t see what these people are talking about. The emphasis to energize within the given musical allotment is exactly what we emphasize now.”

The dancers Martins is casting and rehearsing today necessarily approach the Balanchine works quite differently from those who were part of his ongoing laboratory.

“When I was in the company, it was all related: What we did in class, we did on stage,” recalls former principal Suki Schorer, who was in the company for 13 years and is now a leading teacher at the School of American Ballet, which Balanchine founded. “Now, if his standards are not instilled at the school and maintained in the company, they’ll be gone.”

“I feel like I missed out on something, since I grew up wanting to work with Balanchine,” remarks principal dancer Peter Boal, who was accepted into NYCB a few days after Balanchine’s death. “We’re dancing choreography by someone we never had a chance to work with directly, so we’re rediscovering it for ourselves.”

Saland wonders what Balanchine means to the younger dancers now filling the company’s ranks. Do they comprehend the significance of his achievement, the uniqueness of his legacy?

“I think they’re getting it subconsciously, through actually dancing the Balanchine repertory, although I’m not sure how important that legacy is to them. They still have that aliveness in the muscles, that slightly more taut edge of alertness. That mentality is built into the way we work, and I don’t think that’s going to be lost in any measure. The way classes are taught at the school and the way the ballets are structured requires a knowledge of the music. We know, without a doubt, that we’re riding on the crest rather than after the music. In a different repertory, you go after the music or with the music, but we take the music with us.”

Although NYCB’s repertory since 1983 has regularly featured new choreography--initially by Martins and Jerome Robbins, who retired from an active position with the company in 1990 after more than four decades, and more recently by Martins, along with choreographers he has selected--the Balanchine ballets continue to give NYCB its identity. In addition to those that regularly rotate in and out of active repertory, there have been significant revivals since his death. These include major new productions of “Liebeslieder Walzer” (1960), “Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet” (1966) and “Gounod Symphony” (1958).

All of the recent revivals will be included in the celebration, along with all the repertory mainstays and several ballets being reintroduced after lengthy absences. The major restorations will be “Haieff Divertimento” (1947), “Bourree Fantasque” (1949), “Sylvia Pas de Deux” (1950) and “Minkus Pas de Trois” (1951). “Harlequinade,” a rarely performed Petipa-inspired story ballet from 1964, will return, and the 1947 “Symphonie Concertante,” now in American Ballet Theatre’s repertory, will be danced by students from the school.

Twenty ballet masters have been involved in making all of this possible. The company’s rehearsal staff has been augmented by former Balanchine dancers who returned to coach specific ballets they know well. “When we brought back ballets that none of us had been around for, I felt it was appropriate to bring in those people who danced and remembered them,” explains Martins. Edward Villella, Maria Tallchief and Tanaquil LeClerq are among those who have participated in rehearsals.

Balanchine was known for adapting his choreography to suit specific dancers. For him, the ballets were not etched in stone but rather were living texts. Without him, there can be confusion about how a specific ballet or step should be approached.

“We’re getting flooded with stories,” Boal remarks about his experiences in rehearsals. “I think it’s great. I like to hear everything I can from people the ballets were made on and then make the decision personally, or with Peter’s consensus, to accept some things and disregard others.”

He admits there can also be a downside: “Sometimes it’s not helpful, because what was required of dancers 40 or 50 years ago isn’t necessary today. Sometimes the people who were in the original casts can’t see that making changes is OK. They may ask for a certain head or arm gesture that doesn’t look good on a particular dancer. I trust that Balanchine would have agreed.”

“It’s very hard. You really can’t take license with what’s already been done,” Saland comments. “We can all have opinions as to what might have happened, but we can’t really project. Everyone has a personal vantage point. It can be healthy, but it’s also a little like ‘too many cooks.’ Balanchine knew his work would eventually take another shape once he was gone.”

Indeed, he could be quite philosophical about the future: “You see, everything finally will be different. It wouldn’t be any good 50 years from now to do what we do now. It will be something else,” Balanchine is quoted in an interview.

Martins, for whom the future has been an ongoing concern, has appreciated the current opportunity to step back and focus exclusively on Balanchine. He describes the preparation of the season as “a reaffirmation of his greatness. I’m astonished at the consistently high level of his output. There were never any major slumps. Starting from way back, his work was of a tremendously high quality.”

Contemplating the company’s profile and the Balanchine legacy beyond this special season, Martins says that “Balanchine still dominates the repertory and without a doubt he always will. There is no set plan. It’s an evolving process and depends on so many things.” Saland appears confident about NYCB’s reputation, remarking that “we are incredibly blessed by the talent that’s here. No matter what happens to the structure for a while, that’s bound to carry the company for a long time, if we keep getting such an influx of talent.”

The question of “what next” haunts any ballet choreographer faced with Balanchine’s accomplishments. Martins recognizes the burden, but adds, “I also think you can turn it around and look at it as a guide, an inspiration, a learning tool. Absolutely, there are pros and cons to having someone like Balanchine in front of you all the time. There are many ways of choreographing, and there’s room and need for choreographers in the future.”

Boal, who dances an extensive Balanchine repertory and has also been in a number of recent works choreographed for the company, offers this perspective on the future: “This celebration gives Balanchine the attention and respect he deserves. Also, it’s a clever move, because it makes Balanchine something to be ‘celebrated’ and have an occasion for.

“I believe that probably in upcoming seasons there will be less Balanchine than we’ve had. I don’t think his ballets can ever be lost, because they’re the best and they’re the backbone of the repertory. At the same time, this company was created to serve an innovative choreographer, and it would be wonderful if one as innovative came along. Hopefully, someone will emerge to carry the company forward.”