DANZ QUARTERLY No 3 April 2006

Ballet on the Move

Royal New Zealand Ballet’s artistic director, Gary Harris, in conversation with Tania Kopytko, DANZ CEO, reflecting on the challenges of steering the company in the 21st Century

What were your major goals and the challenges in taking on the role?
What are the strengths of the company?

I was lucky to have worked on and off with the company for five years before taking up this position, so I had an idea of what I was coming into. But there’s no manual for the job. I have certainly enjoyed the challenges of learning how an organisation such as this works. General Manager Sue Paterson, the staff and the dancers are fantastic people to work with. There’s a great energy.

The company is technically stronger and they are looking good, and closer to what I want to see my dancers look like. They are versatile and willing to give it a go.

How do you see the role of an artistic director, and does the success of the company rest solely on their shoulders?

As Artistic Director, I see myself as the custodian of an arts organisation with a history, a present and a future. It’s ongoing. It’s a team – a company of dancers, administration and production that work together. It’s an awesome responsibility. You wouldn’t want to drop and break it!

What is your vision for the company and is it being realised?

My vision and goal is to provide the best possible company that I can, presenting a wide range of works to the highest level of execution and performance.

I note that the membership of the company is largely made up of international dancers. Is this an issue?

New Zealand produces some very good dancers, and people must remember that an awful lot of them are having fantastic careers overseas, dancing in very good companies. We lose some yes, but it’s reciprocal. There is a lot of interest from dancers overseas to come and work here. It’s an international field of play.

Are the major changes and challenges facing ballet overseas the same as the challenges experienced here?

I think New Zealand is incredibly lucky. We have a very healthy arts scene, a national ballet company, great audiences and support. We don’t rely on private patronage like they do in the US for instance, where it is not so secure. It took 50 years for the company to reach this stage and at the moment it’s strong.

A ballet company is a strange animal. It’s like a little factory. All the elements feed in and you put the shows on. It can be very insular, and it’s a full time occupation for everybody involved. Of course we are always looking at ideas and influences within all areas, but the fundamental elements are the classics. They will always be there. They are the nuts and bolts.

The classics will always bring in the audiences. When I was dancing in London Festival Ballet, we used to do Nutcracker for up to five weeks, and three of those weeks would be two shows a day, in a theatre that held over two and a half thousand people. Packed! We needed to do those shows for the financial survival of the company. Then you could do some really edgy triple bill programmes and only have three men and a dog in the audience.

You say you go by your instincts – but how are they guided?
Is ballet struggling as an art form, bound to its traditions?

We are a ballet company. That is what we do best. But ballet does not have to be bound by its traditions. That would kill it stone dead. I certainly have a strong vision of what the traditional classics should look like - the ideal. That’s where my instincts, tastes and experiences come in. Take Giselle for instance. There’s the classic version and then there’s someone like Mats Ek’s version. Totally different, but equally engaging and fascinating. I would love to do a mental version of Giselle. Sort of Kabuki/Geisha, what have you! But not this time. People expect the classics and it’s good to be able to present these works unchanged. It’s part of our heritage. Although we did do something different with Nutcracker and got a fantastic response, it’s sometimes just better to put a work on unchanged.

That was also why I wanted to come and work here. Here you can go from one end of the scale to the other with repertory. It’s about balance.

Does being far from Europe impact on the choices you make? Is it a risk to commission NZ work?

Being far from Europe does not impact on the choices one makes. Of course there’s more choice to be had there, but I always try to make an informed selection of the works we perform. A mix that includes both New Zealand and international works. It is not a risk to commission New Zealand work. We use New Zealand practitioners all of the time. Choreographers, designers and composers. Choreographers do not grow on trees. They are rare creatures. People expect them to pop up every generation. There is not a huge pool of choreographers in New Zealand. For the new ones coming through – it’s up to them. They need to expose themselves as much as they possibly can to what’s happening in their field. Performances, videos, books, whatever …feed, feed, feed and grow. They need to expose themselves to the dance world, whether it’s here or overseas. They need to try stuff out and find a voice and a strong vocabulary. It’s not easy. No one can make you an artist but yourself. The drive needs to be there.

Historically, companies that have a strong identity have been led by a choreographer. Petipa, Balanchine, Martha Graham, William Forsythe, Ashton, Pina Bausch, Kilian to name but a few. They have set the flavour, given the voice.

I’m not a choreographer, so in coming here I wanted to have a “stable” of five or six choreographers that would work with the company on a regular basis, and so maybe give the company its own unique identity and repertory. Choreographers like Christopher Hampson and Javier de Frutos for instance. They enjoy coming here and working with the company. They are internationally renowned and therefore their work is of interest, which can only be good for the company.

Does the commission of The Wedding, promoted heavily as a NZ work, mark a change of direction in commissions? Or does the international success of Whale Rider written by Witi Ihimaera and Mark Baldwin’s position at the Ballet Rambert give it the status that works need to succeed abroad?

The Wedding is not a change in commissions. Choreographer, Mark Baldwin has had a long association with the company. The Wedding stems from an idea that Witi Ihimaera had when the company were performing Ihi Frenzy in 2001. Something he wanted to do that has now come to fruition. You could never deliberately set out to create a success by their involvement, or otherwise. Of course we all hope that all works that the company perform will go off like a rocket. But it’s something you can never guarantee.

You are touring Australia later in the year and you have toured the UK and California. Is this a new trend? What is significant about touring Australia?

Since the Sixties the company has always toured overseas. The benefits of going to Australia and indeed further, are for the company to be exposed to a greater audience, to receive objective criticism, experience new surroundings and to be compared. Plus do more shows, which is always a good thing. An interest from abroad is good. We have a good relationship with The Australian Ballet and building bridges between companies is important. From a marketing and audience development perspective Australia is good for us, a next step. It would be lovely to if we could include Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane on to our New Zealand tours.

What satisfies you about this year’s programme?

This year’s programme, The Wedding, Trinity (a triple bill) and Giselle goes from brand spanking new to 19th Century classics. In Trinity we have a new work from Javier de Frutos: Esquisses, a classy tutu piece from Christopher Hampson and Michael Parmenter’s Les Noces. I’m pleased we can present Michael’s Les Noces. I first saw it when it was performed by the students at UNITEC and I liked it immediately. I then saw it again at his Retrospective. It’s a balanced triple bill. Triple bills are hard to get right. It’s like serving up a balanced meal. Little tasters. Hopefully encouraging people to a different programme. Different styles. Something new. Then we have Giselle. It will be interesting to see if people still want to see an absolute old school classical work, or have they moved on and prefer to see something with a bit more edge to it. I’m loving all that this job entails. Learning to take into account all of the aspects that go towards producing a good programme, a successful company and to keep the passion for dance alive and interesting. One always wants to present good work, the best possible. We have a fantastic team here.

Return to Contents page of DANZ QUARTERLY N0 3 April 2006