Ballet: No Lousy Little Stories

Balanchine’s New York City Ballet: “Pretentious and silly,” “stiff and neoclassical,” “gymnastic and stylistically infelicitous.” His dancers: “A memorial should be erected to all the gallant Americans who fell at Covent Garden.”

Such was the skewering George Balanchine & Co. received during their first two trips to London in 1950 and 1952. In the years since, the troupe somehow always managed to bypass England during its repeated tours of Europe. Last week, winding up an eleven-week swing across Europe, the New York City Ballet was back in London. If any memorial was to be erected this time, it would be for all the gallant critics who fell at the feet of Balanchine.

The London Times was typical: “This great ballet company, so sadly misunderstood when it came in 1950 and 1952, was now appreciated for its true, priceless worth. This is one of the noblest classic ballet companies of all time . . . The range of Balanchine is fantastic.” He is the “unending, unflagging Mozart among choreographers.” When the reviews appeared, the tickets were snapped up in a box-office crush that has meant S.R.O. audiences ever since.

Why the critical flipflop? Balanchine tactfully made it clear that it was not he who had matured, but the London audiences. His present company, he pointed out, is not necessarily better than the one he brought to Covent Garden in 1952. It is just that London balletomanes, long raised on dance with a heavy dose of story line, have lately come to realize, says Balanchine, “that you don’t need the lousy little stories. They say Balanchine is a neoclassicist. They put you in a position where you are not, and then they can’t comprehend when you don’t stay there.”