Some of My Lives (29 page)

Read Some of My Lives Online

Authors: Rosamond Bernier

BOOK: Some of My Lives
7.2Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Subsequently, she had it sent to our apartment. And her generosity went beyond the initial gift. Two brawny men delivered a massive wooden cube that she had retrieved out of a magnificently weathered old pier. It was a perfect base for the sculpture.
I complimented her on her jocular colloquialisms in English. She referred to herself as a fussbud-GET. She referred to an unreliable person who made things up out of ALL CLOTH. She said she owes her easygoing English to her family: her husband and her two boys. “When I married my husband, Robert Goldwater, in 1938, we made a pact. I would never criticize his French if he would never criticize my English. We kept to it. I make mistakes with the greatest assurance.”
In spite of her deep resentment of Sadie, Louise had learned a passable amount of English during those painful years. This came to be very useful when, as a young person, she wanted to study art in Paris. Her father would not give her enough money to take courses. “Let her starve, and she'll get married” was his attitude, straight out of one of Balzac's novels.
But Paris was full of Americans who wanted to study art, and she was the only applicant who could translate for them; she got to take the studio courses for nothing.
Fernand Léger was one of her teachers. She said she learned a lot from him—much of it at a silent, unspoken, visual level.
“He was satisfied with the third dimension on canvas, but I needed to move around the object,” Louise said.
Louise would not travel. For years she had not left the house. She
had no interest in attending affairs in her honor or receiving awards in public. For years she asked me to go to represent her. I went to one recently, at the Municipal Art Society. Often some young person has come up to me at such an event and, looking at me admiringly, enthused, “Madame Bourgeois, I so admire your work.” Sometimes I just smile modestly, accepting the praise.
Another time Louise was having a large exhibition in Finland. Hoping to tempt her, the organizers sent along a travelogue film with many a photogenic lake. Also, it seemed that the Finns have a passion for the tango. There are large halls where they come from all over Finland to dance it. There were sequences of this on the promotional film, showing impassive dancers, the men built like
des armoires à glace
, solemnly dancing the tango.
Louise ran the film for me. Then she hummed an air that she thought was a tango. “No, Louise,” I said, “you are thinking of a
java
, the tango goes like this,” whereupon I hummed and danced a few tango steps.
“Voilà!”
Louise exclaimed. “Just the thing. You will go to Helsinki and dance the tango at my opening.”
I said, “Louise, I would do practically anything for you,
but
no tango in Helsinki.”
M
y husband, John Russell, picked out David Hockney as a winner when David was still in the Royal College of Art, more than fifty years ago. His paintings were not like anyone else's. He himself was not like anyone, either.
He had black hair then—soon, and for most of his life, it was bleached blond—and very large glasses, which were to remain a fixture. In 1961 he made an etching called
Myself and My Heroes
in which he appears with Mahatma Gandhi and Walt Whitman; it bore a written message: “I am twenty three years old and I wear glasses.”
His humor was infectious. Once he saw a picture in a Berlin museum of a leopard in full pursuit of its prey. It impressed him so much that back at his hotel, he made a drawing of it from memory and added two men standing talking in the open. Immediately above them was the leopard, coming down at top speed to make its breakfast of the two of them.
Underneath the two men he wrote, “They are perfectly safe. This is a still.”
John wrote about him, “Over the next forty years it turned out that he could do just about anything that he wanted. He could paint, he could draw, he could make prints, and he could give the word ‘photograph' a whole new meaning. He could give technology a fair shake.
“Along the way, he has become regarded as someone who is a joy to have around, both for what he has achieved and for his golden good nature.”
We had heard on one of those frequent long-distance calls (David
in London to us in New York) that David had just had his portrait painted by his old, though highly dissimilar, friend Lucian Freud.
We were naturally curious to know how it went.
He told us about it when we got back to London: “I walked from my studio to his studio. It's the prettiest walk, through Holland Park, and I was there by 8:30 every morning. I sat for him eight hours a day, for days.
“It's up six flights of stairs. He always runs up them. I would sit for several hours. But he let me smoke and talk, and I had lots and lots of marvelous conversations. His energy was fantastic.
“He works very slowly, because he scrutinizes every tone. I could tell what he was doing. He uses quite a small palette, for seven colors perhaps. He has piles of tubes, but knows at once which one he wants. Just once, he looked a little longer. I realized that he had to look longer for the blue because he hardly ever uses it.”
We didn't see the portrait of David, but Lucian showed us a photograph: a solid, middle-aged Yorkshire man who knows exactly who he is.
In return, David Hockney asked Lucian to pose for him. “He agreed,” David told us, “but he was not going to sit for six hours. The first time he came, he fell asleep in five minutes.”
The next time he came to pose, Lucian arrived with his assistant, and the two of them sat for one of the series of double portraits that David was working on.
“They're in watercolor,” we were told, “and very large—four feet by three. I may show them in London next year.”
We had no idea that we might be involved in this project. But suddenly we got a message (2002) in New York from David in London, asking us if we could be at his studio in London at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, November 8. As I was lecturing at the Metropolitan Museum on the sixth, and again at the Met on the thirteenth, it was a tight schedule, but we weren't going to pass up the invitation. So we flew to London.
When he is working, David gets up early, checks the light and the weather, and prepares himself in good time. Sitters are expected to be prompt, and we were on the nose, like a Swiss express.
We had our backs to a long row of double portraits in watercolor.
As portraits in watercolor go, they were uncommonly, and quite possibly uniquely, big. Each was four feet high and three feet wide.
The sitters included some of David's painter friends—Lucian and Howard Hodgkin among them. Others, like ourselves, were invited for the ride.
Those portraits could never have been painted on one sheet of paper or on a conventional easel. The paint would have run, and the paper would have wrinkled.
So David decided to work with sheets of paper that would be of manageable size and could be laid flat on a board. Each one was twenty-four inches by eighteen inches.
Each double portrait consisted of four of those boards. Once they were fitted tightly together, they could stand tall and be hung on the wall like any other painted portrait.
Sitters were expected to pose, motionless, for six hours the first day and to be on call for a second day if needed.
Anyone who shifts by as much as an inch gets reprimanded. He works in complete silence, no talk, and no music.
Behind him, to our left, were white circular dishes, already filled with differing flesh tones and reds.
To our right were brushes, bottles of water, small glass cups to be used for mixing the pigments with water.
David in daily life is the easiest of men. But when on the job, he can look like a man on the rack. He doesn't exactly groan, but he shivers and shudders. His face darkens. He peers down at the painting as if daring it to disagree with him.
Then he looks at the sitter with one eye screwed up and his face contorted as if he had just seen an appalling sight.
His concentration was almost painful to witness. We had frontrow seats, since David did most of his work standing directly in front of us, just a few feet away.
We were thoroughly looked over, in that our feet were not just auxiliaries. Feet and shoes got star billing.
The sitters sit in identical poses, side by side, but an inch or two apart. They sit on identical office chairs.
To begin with, he takes a smaller pad and roughly blocks in the two figures. Then he takes a quick look, with brush poised. If it's a
small brush, he makes brief pecking motions toward the paper, or broad flat marks with a larger brush.
At the initial stage, the paper is laid flat on the board, and he paints a neutral pale gray across the upper part of the paper. It will remain unchanged as the background.
When he started on my face, he first laid a pen and then a cigarette on the paper to indicate where the top of the head should come.
Every so often he reached for his pack of cigarettes, pulled one out, lit it, took a few puffs, and then threw it on the floor and stamped it out. After a while I counted seven discarded cigarettes on the floor. “I don't smoke them much,” he said, “but I can't work without them.”
The sitter sees the paper at an angle that is almost but never quite horizontal. David began by taking two big panels of paper on a board and laying them flat in front of him.
The initial deposits of paint on the paper are difficult to read. They are pure color and of a purity that is rarely met, with such intensity and with so little that identifies the future subject matter.
Progress is slow but methodical. We see blobs of red and pink whose purpose we cannot identify. But there will come a moment at which, without warning, everything suddenly snaps into place. But there are none of the broad sweeps of the loaded brush that we find in what the English call swagger portraits in oils. The brushes are often tiny, as are the amounts of paint that they can carry.
Half an hour may pass before we get our bearings. Those tiny but vivacious deposits are not going to help us out. They have no volume as yet, but then we suddenly identify them as our fingers, our knees, and a flash of the light from our carefully polished shoes.
Hockney gives a gala finale to the group portrait. The shoes and feet cut a dash—if I may so put it—that the heads and shoulders don't always equal. David features John's signature red socks. It is below the ankle that some of the sitters live life to the full.
This is a high-wire act, without a net, and occasionally Hockney checks his watch. His double portraits have the tone of friendly conversation. His hand lets his eyes get on with their work. Nothing can be corrected, rubbed out, or redone. And if the result does not
seem to the sitter to be “lifelike,” he simply isn't interested. “That's the way I see you,” he will say, if pressed.
That seemed to us a fair deal. To have sat for David Hockney was an experience, and a proof of long friendship, on a scale that does not come every day.
I
n 1985, John and I were in Leningrad in one of those once-grand hotels. Our salon was peopled with large pieces of somewhat worn furniture, with the unexpected addition of a bulky Frigidaire—empty and unconnected.
There was also a small, fancy telephone, left over from some other era. We presumed its function was purely decorative. One time, to our astonishment, it rang. It was Channel 13 calling from New York to ask me to interview Jerome Robbins for their
Great Performances—Dance in America
series.
I thanked them for thinking of me but said I was not a dance critic, they must be thinking of someone else. “We didn't think of you” came the answer. “It was Jerry's idea. In fact he said that if you won't do it, he won't do it at all.”
Jerry and I had been friends for many years. He had often given us tickets for his ballet performances. He had come to my lectures at the Metropolitan Museum. But our conversations were more apt to roam on such general subjects as movies, or trading recipes for exotic sherbets—he was an excellent cook.
I was touched that he had singled me out to be his interviewer. So in spite of misgivings, I finally accepted.
Some time later, we were together in a studio in New York, and Jerry proved to be as eloquent with words as he was with gesture.
Asked about his early days with Ballet Theatre—as a member of the corps de ballet—under Bronislava Nijinska, he said:
She took an instant dislike to me. She singled me out of everyone and said, “Please do a double air turn.” I don't think she
said “please,” just “Do a double air turn.” I did my best and landed in a fifth, slightly off balance, and had to put my foot down. She said, “Ha!” and from then on nothing I could do ever pleased her.
However, I thought
Les Noces
, a remarkable piece, one of the great works of the ballet repertory.
I also like
Les Biches
very much.
We were very fortunate because at that time—there were Fokine, Massine, Lichine … It was a great school for me to be able to go from rehearsal to rehearsal in the same day and work with different choreographers and see how they approached their various ballets.
It was very, very Russified. There was one year when I never got out of boots and Russian bloomers.
It was somewhat against all that that my feeling came to do something American. I thought, why must we only dance Russian subjects? We have American subjects we can dance about. Those feelings turned into
Fancy Free
—about sailors in wartime in New York.
The material for research was all there in front of us. We were at the old Met, a block away from Forty-second Street, where every sailor who came to New York gravitated. One could see them walking down the street, eyes and mouth wide open to all the sights that were New York. They usually went in threes, which struck me.
Another approach to
Fancy Free
was that I had been submitting scenarios to the company for quite a while—little things like five-act ballets [laughs]. Casts of thousands. Finally, someone wisely said to me, “Why don't you compose a scenario with just a few people which won't be difficult to put on.” So I did just that, and wrote a scenario which is the basis of
Fancy Free
. They said, “Now, find yourself a composer and you can put it on this spring.” So I searched and searched and found Lenny Bernstein, who was unknown then.
He had been suggested to me by a number of other composers who didn't want to bother with
Fancy Free
. They didn't know who I was, why should they spend the time.
They all said, there's this guy named Lenny Bernstein, if you can find him.
Oliver Smith, who was to design the set, said, “Oh, I know him.” So I called him up and went over. I walked in and said, “I'll give you my scenario and you play me some of your music and let's see how we get on.”
We both liked each other's ideas and that was that. We were off and running.
He was writing the ballet score while I was touring. We were all so young we didn't think of the complications. He would send me records, of him and sometimes even Aaron Copland, playing the music so that I would hear what the music was like.
Then I'd either write or call him and say, “I'm sorry, Variation Three is much too long, or this is too fast, or this is wonderful.” This correspondence went on right until we came back off tour.
I was inventing the ballet as we toured … in cellars, lobbies, gyms, any place I could find room. On top of normal rehearsals and performances.
I was told I never had my nose out of the score during the whole trip. On the train, everywhere, I was fascinated by it.
The dancers that I wanted were all pals of mine, we were all in the corps de ballet, we had been bumming around together on four continents.
When the ballet was finally put on, it was a surprise, to all of us. A Hurok press agent had come and watched a rehearsal and said, “I think you're in for something here.” The ballet opened, we did our best, and then came this reaction which was the wildest reaction I've ever had.
We had an unprecedented amount of curtain calls—twenty-two, which is really extraordinary. It was such an abrupt change from what the ballet audiences were used to.
The second night, we were so nervous we almost fell down, and did all the wrong things.
It was difficult being both choreographer and dancer. I had choreographed a role for myself in
Fancy Free
, the Third
Sailor. I hadn't quite finished choreographing my own variation by opening night; I think I improvised a bit.
After the success of
Fancy Free
, unfortunately, for a while, I became known as a jazz choreographer who did New York subjects, contemporary work. It took me a long time to dispel that classification.
 
“You're very physically aware of the way people move.”
 
Not only the way they move, the way they move in space, because that's what ballets are about. That volume, that space, is the stage. The drama is how people move in and around it, or separate from each other, or more come in, or move to one side of the stage, move forward or backward.
That is the fascination of choreography. It's an empty studio when you start a ballet and the first dancer begins. It's rather an awesome moment because it is like putting the first mark of ink on a piece of blank paper. From then on, your whole structure is going to be connected to that.
I always feel that choreography is a little like building a bridge. You start on one side, you build a step, then you build another step, and another. The structure has to contain itself so that it meets at the ends of the ballet and makes an architectural structure that is satisfying.
It was Oliver Smith who suggested making a musical out of
Fancy Free
. We made the adventures of three sailors in New York into the musical
On the Town
. We had fun doing it. It was our first time out with the genre, there was a lot we didn't know, we were very brash, but we got away with it. Then that became a movie.
There was a period when I alternated doing commercial shows and working on ballets. I sandwiched in
West Side Story
,
Fiddler on the Roof
, and
Gypsy
, and I became a director of those, as well as the choreographer.
How do I start a ballet? Mostly I feel that working on a ballet is like knowing there's an island out there, which you've heard about, and you have to find your way to it. Once you
get on it, you have to explore. By the time you finish the ballet, you've explored the island.
I don't always know how my ballets are going to end. I have to find that as I go along. I do have a conception, somewhere in the back of my head, of the total arch of the music.
I know none of the steps before I begin. I have to work that out in the studio, with the dancers. What comes out of that leads me to the next move, always guided by the perimeters … the perimeter is the score.
Choosing the composer, the music, is a very subjective thing. At one moment you can hear something that appeals to you because of what's going on in your life, it really hits you. Another time, you might not have reacted to it.
I know this was true of Alban Berg. When I heard a recording, I was intensely moved by it. A friend of mine pointed out that I'd heard it with him several years before. At that time, it didn't stay with me enough to want to work with it. But then I was ready for it.
I followed the actual structure of the score. That score is a marvelous cryptogram on many, many levels. The story behind it is that Alban Berg was very fond of a daughter of a friend of his, Alma Mahler. She contracted polio and died after a lot of suffering. Berg was so upset that he stopped working on
Lulu
, or the last act, and wrote this piece in memory of her. My ballet is
In Memory Of …
The structure of the music is a portrait of the girl, and her society, and her struggle with death, and then her transfiguration.
So much of his own biography was incorporated into that score. It was written in 1935. The Nazis were rising up. He was also very ill himself. In it are his notes about his love affairs, an illegitimate child he had when he was very young, his relationship with another woman.
All this within the structure of twelve-tone serial music. At the same time he was a wonderfully dramatic, lyric writer. Finally, the ballet should not be connected to one person, but to the sense of losing people, and the struggles they go through when they're ill and die. And hopefully, arrive at a peace for themselves.
I had a difficult time with that ballet. I got quite despairing halfway through it, up to the point where Death enters. I didn't know how to use the rest of the music. I got very depressed because the music is very depressing.
But by chance, Adam Luders was at that rehearsal. I dismissed everyone else, thinking I am going to stop the ballet here. I still had half an hour, so I said, “Come on, Adam, stand here,” and I started working on a pas de deux.
I didn't know that I was going to use that music for a pas de deux until that moment. Everything opened up. I couldn't go wrong.
You have to remember I had studied the score very closely so that I knew musically what was going to happen even though I didn't yet know physically. It was almost like automatic writing. I felt I couldn't make a mistake.
The same thing happened in rehearsal with Adam and Suzanne Farrell, we all fused in an extraordinary way. I've never had a rehearsal like that, it was almost as if it had already been done. No matter what I asked them to do, it led immediately to the next thing, and then we moved on to the next.
I don't know what I will be doing next. I have a list of ballets I want to get to sooner or later, but you have to be ready for them.
Sometimes you can force yourself, and that isn't bad, the discipline can turn into something interesting.
Whenever we did our festivals that Mr. Balanchine organized, suddenly we were all doing Stravinsky ballets, or Tchaikovsky ballets, or Ravel ballets, whether we wanted to or not. And that wasn't bad discipline.
Sometimes it is good to work not where you feel the most comfortable or the most ready.
What I find about rehearsals is that on the days that I do not want to go to the theater, and do not want to choreograph, because I don't know what I am doing, and I'm the most upset about it, is the day when something happens.
As choreographers, we're stuck working not when we feel like it but when the company can arrange a rehearsal. Terpsichore
has to come down between three and six on Friday afternoon, even though you may feel like working between ten and twelve.
So we have to work when we can get the dancers and when the schedule permits it. That too is a wonderful discipline.
I did one ballet without music, called
Moves
. I had commissioned a score from Aaron Copland , this was for my own company. He was late writing it, I was already in rehearsal. So I'd go over to Aaron and he'd play me a fragment, and I'd go to the rehearsal with some of the tunes and certainly the rhythms in my head. I started to choreograph it, even though there was no score. I was doing it to counts. Suddenly I looked at it and thought this is very interesting without any music.
So I went ahead and choreographed the whole ballet in silence. The dancers got used to it very fast.
It was really about what happens to roles when they're not being danced. When
Petrushka
,
Giselle
,
Hamlet
, or
Traviata
are not being performed, they're sort of hanging around somewhere, waiting for an actor or a dancer or a singer to bring them to life.
I had started a ballet called
Antique Epigraphs
, and it was only when I got near the end that I realized that what was haunting me were some statues in Naples at the National Museum. Many years ago I had walked into a room, and there were four or five bronze life-sized statues with enamel eyes. It was like walking into the middle of a silent ritual. It was almost alarming.
Near the end of my ballet, I turned my dancers, more or less, into those statues. It was the idea of stillness, which we find in Greek sculpture and vases, that comes into the ballet.
When I started the ballet, I didn't have those sculptures in mind. It wasn't until later on that I thought, “There's something in my head that's trying to get out.” Then I remembered the statues, and felt yes, this is where I was going.
For choreographers, our work is composed of our experiences, which are conscious or unconscious. Dance is so abstract, nonverbal, nonanalytical that you can't put your finger on it, which I think is why it is so exciting.
A reason that dance is so popular now is that it is one of the few experiences that a person coming to the theater can have which they cannot have from television. It is a magical ritual of an abstract kind, a fantasy. It puts you in a place that no other theatrical experience can match.
I see dance as an experience, the way music is. When you listen to Mozart, you don't look for a story. There's this glorious sound coming at you. But some ballets can be stories, some can be more abstract. I don't think there should be any rules.
Fancy Free
was as much a story ballet as you can get. I did it in 1944. The Berg,
In Memory Of …
, I did in 1985, fiftyeight ballets later. You change and see your art somewhat differently. I don't think I could ever do a ballet now like
Fancy Free
, just as in that day I never could have done
In Memory Of …

Other books

Wakening the Crow by Stephen Gregory
The Tender Years by Janette Oke
Guardians of Paradise by Jaine Fenn
Sons of Angels by Rachel Green
Sudden Exposure by Susan Dunlap
Elvenborn by Andre Norton, Mercedes Lackey