 |
| Photo: Channel 4 |
Sleep is adamant that ballet is for everyone and its normative lithe and slim body must be challenged - conventions are just that and not immutable. He cites himself as a case in point, as he forged a career as top ballet dancer despite being very short, only 5'2 (but very flexible and slim). "I learnt to jump higher than everyone else" he says.
I have found the programme very interesting. It did challenge my preconceptions and it raised questions that I am at a loss to answer. |
| Photo: Channel 4 |
Ironically, before watching this programme, I happened to watch Supersize vs Superskinny which is about encouraging extremely obese and extremely skinny people to improve their diet and be less extreme. Could the supersize woman featured in the latest episode have been a good Odette? She certainly had the size Wayne Sleep seems to be after.
What Sleep proposes is not easy to embrace, if we are talking about professional performance. Ballet dancers are known for their extreme flexibility, their rigorous training, a body that they sculpt through constant practice and exercise. Ballet is a shape oriented dance form, the dancers do not just move gracefully and with ease, they also use their bodies to create shapes and these shapes are dominated by elongation and extension.
Ballet has changed through the decades and become very athletic and physically demanding. It was Balanchine, among others in the 20th century, that favoured elongation and had a preference for very slim, long legged, tall dancers - height was not regarded as a virtue in ballet prior to Balanchine, it seems that Audrey Hepburn at just 5'7" was thought as too tall to be a ballet dancer, despite her grace and elegance so she embarked on a career as an actress though continuing to train with Marie Rambert for many years.
Larger dancers can indeed be very graceful in their movements and it is a fact that 19th century ballet dancers were plumper than today's ballet dancers, nor was the technique back then as demanding and the training as gruelling as it is today.
Is Sleep advocating a return to a different kind of ballet, one which is perhaps less shape oriented and less athletic? Or is he simply making the point that dance is good for you and everyone should dance, regardless of their body size, but not at a professional level, in the same way that large men with flab do play football but whether they make it into a professional team is a different 'game' altogether.
Elongation and plumpness do not go together well, nor is extra body fat helpful for flexibility. If you take away these two elements, flexibility and elongation, are we still talking about ballet or is it another kind of dance? And what about the lifts that are so much part of a ballet choreography, involving aerial work? Can a very heavy dancer cope with them?
When Wayne Sleep says that being short put him at a disadvantage, the situation is not really comparable. His lack of height did not prevent him from achieving the required flexibility and speed and, being well proportioned, he could still convey length through his movements.
As I was mulling over this, I suddenly thought of what designers say with regard to body shape and why they need skinny models, because they are like hangers for the clothes. I passionately believe that it is still possible to have wonderful design work shown on bodies that are not super skinny. Conversely, should we not have different kinds of ballet? A size 20 dancer may be extremely ill at ease performing a Balanchine choreography, but might be able to dance a piece that enhances other qualities, such as expression, rather than shape and body flexibility.
I doubt traditional ballet choreographies would suit a very large dancer, but maybe newer ones?
I am still trying to come to terms with my own ideas of Odette as slim, petite, flexible and virtuosic in her dancing, a beautiful swan. But I am willing to be challenged by a heavier, slower and much larger swan. Maybe not quite a swan, really. After all what matters is the romance of the story and the tragedy of the star crossed lovers so we could have, well, elephants rather than swans. Who says that elephants are not graceful and majestic? Or hippos? Do you remember Fantasia?
There are certain activities for which weight does matter. Jockeying is one of them. A heavy weight jockey would not be able to race and the poor horse would struggle. Likewise, there are some features of ballet which cannot be executed by very large bodies.
Let's not get carried away with political correctness.
Ballet has changed through the decades and become very athletic and physically demanding. It was Balanchine, among others in the 20th century, that favoured elongation and had a preference for very slim, long legged, tall dancers - height was not regarded as a virtue in ballet prior to Balanchine, it seems that Audrey Hepburn at just 5'7" was thought as too tall to be a ballet dancer, despite her grace and elegance so she embarked on a career as an actress though continuing to train with Marie Rambert for many years.
Larger dancers can indeed be very graceful in their movements and it is a fact that 19th century ballet dancers were plumper than today's ballet dancers, nor was the technique back then as demanding and the training as gruelling as it is today.
Is Sleep advocating a return to a different kind of ballet, one which is perhaps less shape oriented and less athletic? Or is he simply making the point that dance is good for you and everyone should dance, regardless of their body size, but not at a professional level, in the same way that large men with flab do play football but whether they make it into a professional team is a different 'game' altogether.
Elongation and plumpness do not go together well, nor is extra body fat helpful for flexibility. If you take away these two elements, flexibility and elongation, are we still talking about ballet or is it another kind of dance? And what about the lifts that are so much part of a ballet choreography, involving aerial work? Can a very heavy dancer cope with them?
Photographer: Mark Bigelow. Models: myself and Ella Rose
As I was mulling over this, I suddenly thought of what designers say with regard to body shape and why they need skinny models, because they are like hangers for the clothes. I passionately believe that it is still possible to have wonderful design work shown on bodies that are not super skinny. Conversely, should we not have different kinds of ballet? A size 20 dancer may be extremely ill at ease performing a Balanchine choreography, but might be able to dance a piece that enhances other qualities, such as expression, rather than shape and body flexibility.
I doubt traditional ballet choreographies would suit a very large dancer, but maybe newer ones?
I am still trying to come to terms with my own ideas of Odette as slim, petite, flexible and virtuosic in her dancing, a beautiful swan. But I am willing to be challenged by a heavier, slower and much larger swan. Maybe not quite a swan, really. After all what matters is the romance of the story and the tragedy of the star crossed lovers so we could have, well, elephants rather than swans. Who says that elephants are not graceful and majestic? Or hippos? Do you remember Fantasia?
 |
| Photo: Google images |
There are certain activities for which weight does matter. Jockeying is one of them. A heavy weight jockey would not be able to race and the poor horse would struggle. Likewise, there are some features of ballet which cannot be executed by very large bodies.
Let's not get carried away with political correctness.
I can imagine elephant Odette, but not elephant Odile. I cannot think of an elephant as wicked, especially not a female.
ReplyDeleteWhen you moved from swans to elephants, was Dali's Swans Reflecting Elephants in your mind? It was a favourite of the walls of student rooms some years ago, as a poster from Athena.