WEBVTT

1
00:00:27.600 --> 00:00:29.000
I

2
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:36.820
should tell you that my questions when we edit this will be cut out of the show so that

3
00:00:36.820 --> 00:00:40.000
you need to incorporate my question in your answer.

4
00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:40.420
Yes, yes, of course.

5
00:00:41.000 --> 00:00:41.420
We're rolling.

6
00:00:41.460 --> 00:00:42.140
We're rolling?

7
00:00:42.400 --> 00:00:42.940
Okay, fine.

8
00:00:44.100 --> 00:00:46.280
Tell me about the first time you met Ruth Page.

9
00:00:47.320 --> 00:00:53.960
The first time I met Ruth Page, I think in actual fact it was after I had come to live

10
00:00:53.960 --> 00:01:02.520
in America in 1965 and I met her and her husband Tom Fisher under rather curious circumstances

11
00:01:02.520 --> 00:01:10.060
actually because I had given a very, very unfavorable notice to one of her ballets or

12
00:01:10.060 --> 00:01:18.040
performance of the Chicago Opera Ballet in Brooklyn and it wasn't a really very happy

13
00:01:18.040 --> 00:01:18.560
meeting.

14
00:01:18.900 --> 00:01:20.340
Subsequent meetings were a lot happier.

15
00:01:21.480 --> 00:01:24.700
What had you heard about her and her work before?

16
00:01:24.700 --> 00:01:30.680
Oh, I'd known her work quite well before that of course. I mean I'd seen the ballets she'd

17
00:01:30.680 --> 00:01:37.600
done in France and in England. She did Velia for example for London Festival Ballet. I

18
00:01:37.600 --> 00:01:43.040
suppose that must have been about 1958 or something like that. And even before that

19
00:01:43.040 --> 00:01:49.600
she'd done Frankie and Johnny of course which was seen in Paris in I think that must have

20
00:01:49.600 --> 00:01:50.660
been about 1949.

21
00:01:50.860 --> 00:01:51.400
1950.

22
00:01:51.760 --> 00:02:01.940
1950. And then I of course I saw her ballet to Trovatore Revenge which she did for Ronald

23
00:02:01.940 --> 00:02:07.540
Petit. So I knew her work moderately well before I came to this country of course but

24
00:02:07.540 --> 00:02:08.480
I'd never met her.

25
00:02:09.640 --> 00:02:15.080
What would you say are the qualities when you think of Ruth Page, the qualities of her

26
00:02:15.080 --> 00:02:16.800
choreography that come to mind or her work?

27
00:02:17.580 --> 00:02:26.140
I suppose the main quality of her choreography is her ability to express dramatic themes.

28
00:02:26.940 --> 00:02:31.840
She was always interested in drama. It's not an accident I think that so many of her ballets

29
00:02:31.840 --> 00:02:38.280
derived from opera, from opera libretto. She had a great feeling for those kind of things.

30
00:02:39.020 --> 00:02:46.320
And I suppose it was the drama but also something of the vivacity that is so characteristic

31
00:02:46.320 --> 00:02:51.680
of her as a person. She was a very lively zippy person and something of that particularly

32
00:02:51.680 --> 00:02:58.020
in some of her lighter ballets, velia and ballets like that, Flatamouse. That does emerge

33
00:02:58.020 --> 00:03:00.020
as a certain ebullience there.

34
00:03:01.340 --> 00:03:06.560
An ebullience that's very much a part of Ruth. Do you see her coming out of a tradition?

35
00:03:08.040 --> 00:03:13.760
The curious thing about Ruth is that she doesn't really come out of any particular tradition.

36
00:03:13.760 --> 00:03:20.920
You've got to remember that she grew up at a time when there really was no American dancing.

37
00:03:20.980 --> 00:03:27.920
She was a pioneer really even before there were pioneers. I mean she was before Dennis

38
00:03:27.920 --> 00:03:34.880
Sean really. She was before Agnes DeMille. She started to dance, well she was dancing

39
00:03:34.880 --> 00:03:41.260
with Pabllova in 1918 in a South American tour. And consequently although I suppose

40
00:03:41.260 --> 00:03:48.300
you would have to say that her background was Russian ballet, ballet, Ruth, Pabllova

41
00:03:48.300 --> 00:03:56.000
to an extent, Diaghilev, she more or less had to create herself. She certainly had to

42
00:03:56.000 --> 00:04:01.240
create herself as an American choreographer. And in this I suspect she was greatly helped

43
00:04:01.240 --> 00:04:08.260
by her association with Bentley Stone. Together they did Frankie and Johnny. And Frankie and

44
00:04:08.260 --> 00:04:14.260
Johnny together with some of the works of the Littlefield sisters, particularly Bond

45
00:04:14.260 --> 00:04:21.060
Dance and Terminal. These really were the first American or Americana ballets even before

46
00:04:21.060 --> 00:04:28.340
DeMille, even before Rodeo and all the ballets we associate. Really the Littlefields in Philadelphia

47
00:04:28.340 --> 00:04:34.860
and Ruth in Chicago really created the first American style ballets.

48
00:04:34.860 --> 00:04:36.980
What is an American style ballet?

49
00:04:37.140 --> 00:04:41.960
Well it's really something that hasn't really happened. But when we used to think of an

50
00:04:41.960 --> 00:04:48.580
American style ballet, I suppose it was a ballet that used vernacular American dance

51
00:04:48.580 --> 00:04:58.160
in the way that Robbins did in Fancy Free, in the way that Rodeo, DeMille's Rodeo, using

52
00:04:58.160 --> 00:05:04.840
square dances and using ballroom dances as in Fancy Free. But the curious thing is that

53
00:05:04.840 --> 00:05:11.760
it's a form of character dance that really hasn't progressed. I mean it's a form that

54
00:05:11.760 --> 00:05:17.780
is now almost extinct. I suppose it's because really there isn't an American folk dance.

55
00:05:17.780 --> 00:05:22.760
We tend to pretend there is but there isn't. You can't really say that square dancing

56
00:05:22.760 --> 00:05:34.820
is folk dancing. It isn't. And ballroom dancing is such a genre on its own that it doesn't

57
00:05:34.820 --> 00:05:35.540
exist.

58
00:05:36.520 --> 00:05:41.900
What we used to think of as popular American ballet, the stuff that Lauren did and all

59
00:05:41.900 --> 00:05:44.000
that, I think that's almost a dead of a dodo.

60
00:05:47.120 --> 00:05:56.160
And he wasn't even choreographing really then and she asked him for $50. He choreographed

61
00:05:56.160 --> 00:06:01.380
a little dance for her. It's called Polka Melancholique. I don't know what the piece

62
00:06:01.380 --> 00:06:04.300
is called, but she's a very famous musician and there still is her notes on what the steps

63
00:06:04.300 --> 00:06:10.900
were, made up herself. Hi-hats, say hello, not like a labor notation or anything like

64
00:06:10.900 --> 00:06:17.260
that. And apparently this so incensed Diagolype that it was one of the reasons that she left

65
00:06:18.420 --> 00:06:22.120
after being there a little less than a year, after being there a few times.

66
00:06:24.280 --> 00:06:33.720
There are people who say that once George Balanchine came on the scene in America, it

67
00:06:33.720 --> 00:06:37.620
sort of wiped away almost everybody else. What do you think?

68
00:06:38.560 --> 00:06:44.580
Of course the impact of George Balanchine in 1933, at the end of 1933 when he came here

69
00:06:44.580 --> 00:06:50.080
and formed the School of American Ballet, then from 1934 onwards when he was a performing

70
00:06:50.080 --> 00:06:59.320
artist, there's no doubt that Balanchine completely changed the pattern and the line

71
00:06:59.320 --> 00:07:06.400
of American dance. And of course people like Ruth, who came from a rather different tradition,

72
00:07:06.660 --> 00:07:12.840
a character tradition, didn't have the sheer technical resources of Balanchine. I mean

73
00:07:12.840 --> 00:07:17.100
technical resources choreographically apart from anything. They didn't know the steps

74
00:07:17.100 --> 00:07:25.980
and the way that Balanchine knew. They were very soon swept away by the sheer force of

75
00:07:25.980 --> 00:07:32.000
Balanchine, who was also extremely well organized. I mean he had, when one thinks of Balanchine,

76
00:07:32.300 --> 00:07:37.380
one always has to think not just of Balanchine, but the force of Balanchine, which is very

77
00:07:37.380 --> 00:07:42.620
much the force of Balanchine plus Kirstein. Lincoln Kirstein played a vital part in all

78
00:07:42.620 --> 00:07:50.860
this. Lincoln Kirstein wished to form American dance in the shape of Balanchine and indeed

79
00:07:50.860 --> 00:08:00.420
he did. So one must never forget the influence of Kirstein in this. And to someone like Kirstein,

80
00:08:00.840 --> 00:08:11.420
Ruth would have been anathema. He wouldn't even have considered her a proper choreographer,

81
00:08:11.420 --> 00:08:15.840
I imagine. Actually there's a story that he did ask her to go along when they were doing

82
00:08:15.840 --> 00:08:18.020
that thing on the South American thing. I think he did, but I suspect that that would

83
00:08:18.020 --> 00:08:23.880
have been financial. I mean I suspect that Lincoln always had a very strong regard for

84
00:08:23.880 --> 00:08:30.160
anyone with money and anyone prepared to put money into dance. And Ruth was always prepared

85
00:08:30.160 --> 00:08:35.220
to put her money where her heart was. And her heart was always in dance. And she was

86
00:08:35.220 --> 00:08:40.100
always prepared to back dance with her own or sometimes with Tom's money. And this was

87
00:08:40.100 --> 00:08:41.060
an important factor.

88
00:08:43.600 --> 00:08:48.820
So do you think, by the way, that things are changing now? There are people who say, well

89
00:08:48.820 --> 00:08:55.640
we're going to see a return to romantic classical story ballets since the death of Balanchine

90
00:08:55.640 --> 00:08:56.600
and even before.

91
00:08:56.920 --> 00:09:02.880
Are we going to see a return to the classic romantic story ballets? Well of course classic

92
00:09:02.880 --> 00:09:09.660
romantic story ballets have never died. Remember Balanchine himself did them. And I think that

93
00:09:11.100 --> 00:09:17.340
one of the important things of Balanchine was to establish a technique. And his plotless

94
00:09:17.340 --> 00:09:23.820
neo-classical ballets were extraordinarily useful in formulating that style and formulating

95
00:09:23.820 --> 00:09:29.660
that technique just the same as in Great Britain where the circumstances were very similar,

96
00:09:29.660 --> 00:09:40.080
where you had a classic tradition being evolved and planted. The neo-classical ballets of

97
00:09:40.080 --> 00:09:41.240
the time were very similar.

98
00:09:41.240 --> 00:09:46.600
I think that ballet is a very wide spectrum and there will always be room for all types

99
00:09:46.600 --> 00:09:50.960
of ballet, just the same as there is room for all types of opera or all types of play.

100
00:09:51.720 --> 00:10:01.420
I think that at any one time some may be fashionable or unfashionable according to the mood and

101
00:10:01.420 --> 00:10:07.260
temper of the moment. But I think this will always vary. We may be coming back to romanticism

102
00:10:07.260 --> 00:10:12.680
but if we are coming back to it we will be going away from it in ten years time. It's

103
00:10:12.680 --> 00:10:12.780
fashion.

104
00:10:13.000 --> 00:10:19.360
That's the way it goes. Ruth as you know went through a number of different styles. She

105
00:10:19.360 --> 00:10:23.500
started off doing Americana ballets as you said and then she had a period where she was

106
00:10:23.500 --> 00:10:27.540
doing jazz ballets and then there was also in her life a very modern period when she

107
00:10:27.540 --> 00:10:33.680
was dancing with Harold Kreutzberg and then the opera ballets. Do you think that her,

108
00:10:36.180 --> 00:10:42.000
first of all, what effect do you think she had on American dance and secondly do you

109
00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:49.660
think that the fact that she worked in so many different styles lessened her effect

110
00:10:49.660 --> 00:10:50.140
I guess?

111
00:10:50.640 --> 00:10:59.240
I think the total effect on American dance of Ruth Paget is not going to be particularly

112
00:10:59.240 --> 00:11:08.080
large. It was always unfortunate that she never, despite I suppose something like four

113
00:11:08.080 --> 00:11:14.780
decades of effort, she never really succeeded in creating a ballet tradition in Chicago

114
00:11:14.780 --> 00:11:22.720
for certain reasons for that. I think that Claudia Cassidy must play the critic, must

115
00:11:22.720 --> 00:11:27.960
play a part in that because she never, I think that she was a very powerful critic and never

116
00:11:27.960 --> 00:11:34.780
provided a particularly helpful climate for local Chicago products. I mean it's the same

117
00:11:34.780 --> 00:11:39.040
way that there wasn't much in the way of a local Chicago theater or there wasn't much

118
00:11:39.040 --> 00:11:45.200
in the way of a local Chicago, well even the lyric opera didn't exactly flourish. And I

119
00:11:45.200 --> 00:11:51.560
think that the, not just Claudia, but the general critical attitude of Chicago which

120
00:11:51.560 --> 00:11:56.760
always took the line that this can't be any good otherwise why is this happening in Chicago.

121
00:11:57.680 --> 00:12:06.160
The second city syndrome was always very tricky for Paige and I think that affected

122
00:12:06.160 --> 00:12:17.420
her final effect. But I think in the kind of ultimate answer to the ultimate question

123
00:12:18.240 --> 00:12:26.540
of her effectiveness in American ballet I think the answer must be it won't be that

124
00:12:26.540 --> 00:12:29.300
long. I think that she's been a very successful dancer for a long period of time. I don't

125
00:12:29.300 --> 00:12:36.240
think her ballets themselves have much in the way of lasting. They haven't got what

126
00:12:36.240 --> 00:12:43.620
on Broadway is called legs. I don't think that they will continue to run. I think this

127
00:12:43.620 --> 00:12:53.200
is unfortunate in many ways because she had great talent as an organizer and as an inspirer.

128
00:12:56.540 --> 00:13:02.520
In her final effect had she found a choreographer? Had she been like a woman with whom she had

129
00:13:02.520 --> 00:13:09.220
a certain amount in common, Nina de Valois in England? Had she, de Valois was able to

130
00:13:09.220 --> 00:13:16.060
find an Ashton. Had she found a choreographer whom she could have influenced and molded?

131
00:13:18.180 --> 00:13:21.460
Perhaps this thing worked out differently with Bentley Stone. That might have been a

132
00:13:21.560 --> 00:13:28.240
good answer. But I don't think that she herself had, she just didn't have the steps in her.

133
00:13:29.400 --> 00:13:36.480
She just didn't have the ability to turn a dance phrase that you would say, my God, I'm

134
00:13:36.480 --> 00:13:44.000
going to remember this all my life. She didn't have that special smidgen, that essential

135
00:13:44.000 --> 00:13:51.540
smidgen of genius that could have taken her from a dance arranger into a dancer. I don't

136
00:13:51.560 --> 00:13:55.040
think that she was a major creative choreographer of the 20th century.

137
00:13:56.020 --> 00:14:00.740
So then what do you think her contributions to dance have been?

138
00:14:00.860 --> 00:14:05.500
I think her contributions to dance and films have been as a popularizer, she's done a great

139
00:14:05.500 --> 00:14:12.980
deal to popularize dance. Some of her, particularly her operetta ballets have been extremely popular.

140
00:14:14.020 --> 00:14:21.540
The long tours she did with the Chicago Opera Ballet was often with guest stars, the, the

141
00:14:21.560 --> 00:14:30.380
sometimes Danes, sometimes Ballet Russe people. And she, she did a terrific amount of pioneering

142
00:14:30.380 --> 00:14:36.780
work going on one night stands, on half week engagements to places where they wouldn't

143
00:14:36.780 --> 00:14:42.980
have seen ballet. And together with Serge Denham's Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo, which

144
00:14:42.980 --> 00:14:49.780
did much the same thing on perhaps a slightly larger scale, but still she developed, helped

145
00:14:49.780 --> 00:14:55.040
develop the great American audience for dance, the great American audience for dance that

146
00:14:55.040 --> 00:15:00.540
was A, ready to send its children to dance in school, which is important, and also was

147
00:15:00.540 --> 00:15:07.500
ready for the big video dance explosion that was about to burst towards the end of the

148
00:15:07.500 --> 00:15:14.620
60s perhaps, which she still played, was playing part, a small part. But her importance I think

149
00:15:14.620 --> 00:15:20.160
was as a popularizer of dance. And also she had a great effect in the, in the middle,

150
00:15:20.260 --> 00:15:25.560
in the Midwest. I mean there wasn't all that amount of dance available in the Midwest.

151
00:15:26.460 --> 00:15:35.420
I mean you can tell from the writings of someone like Anne Barzell. Anne knows that scene better

152
00:15:35.420 --> 00:15:42.380
than anyone else of course. And I, I think Anne's assessment would probably be something

153
00:15:42.680 --> 00:15:43.420
similar.

154
00:15:46.420 --> 00:15:52.540
Are there some personal memories of, of Ruth that you have, anecdotes I know that you've

155
00:15:52.540 --> 00:15:53.360
known her over the years?

156
00:15:53.380 --> 00:16:04.260
Well, I just find her kindness and generosity of spirit so, so, so she's such a very, very

157
00:16:04.260 --> 00:16:10.520
nice person. She's one of those few people in dance that I have never heard anyone say

158
00:16:10.520 --> 00:16:17.540
a bad word of. I mean certainly a lot of people who, who don't like her choreography there,

159
00:16:17.840 --> 00:16:25.260
that a lot of people have written bad words about, about Ruth, certainly. And a lot of

160
00:16:25.260 --> 00:16:31.120
people have written about her work and talked about her work perhaps. But of Ruth as a person,

161
00:16:32.240 --> 00:16:40.500
she is adorable. She's generous. She's generous with her time, with her energy, with her energy.

162
00:16:40.520 --> 00:16:47.220
With her money. But most of all with her personality and spirit. She makes you want to do things.

163
00:16:48.600 --> 00:16:56.560
She, she brightens days up. I used to love it when she would come to town to New York

164
00:16:57.060 --> 00:17:02.340
and she would see me and she'd say, come and have, come and have dinner. We, we'd usually

165
00:17:02.340 --> 00:17:08.120
have dinner at the plaza. She used to stay at the plaza. And we would have dinner in

166
00:17:09.340 --> 00:17:15.040
the churro. And she would talk incessantly and it would all be gossip. And it would all

167
00:17:15.040 --> 00:17:22.120
be kind gossip somehow. Now, now what on earth is kind gossip? Ruth was a, always has been

168
00:17:22.120 --> 00:17:28.620
a past mistress of the kind gossip. And always very, very fascinating. Her views on dance

169
00:17:28.620 --> 00:17:34.580
were always very, very perceptive. And not only perceptive but very generous. She wasn't

170
00:17:34.580 --> 00:17:38.140
one of these choreographers who never had a good word to say for any other choreographer

171
00:17:38.140 --> 00:17:41.720
like Balanchine or someone like that. I mean Balanchine, I don't think he ever saw any

172
00:17:41.720 --> 00:17:46.260
other choreographer. At least he didn't like any other choreographer. And this is true

173
00:17:46.260 --> 00:17:55.740
of most creative artists. But Ruth had the mind, manner and taste of a true connoisseur.

174
00:17:56.180 --> 00:18:04.300
She really knew quality. You could see, you could see that in the way she dressed, in

175
00:18:04.300 --> 00:18:12.120
what she was. She knew exactly what fitted her, what suited her. And she had great taste

176
00:18:12.120 --> 00:18:17.300
in dancers and she had great taste in almost everything she touched.