Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet: History of a Compromise
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Copyright by Deborah Annette Wilson 2003 ABSTRACT Sergei Prokofiev’s ballet Romeo and Juliet is best known in the version first presented at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad, on January 11, 1940, with choreography by Leonid Lavrovsky. Frequently overlooked is an earlier score, commissioned by the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow and completed in 1935, which differs significantly from the commonly known 1940 variant. To this day, the 1935 version of Romeo and Juliet, which contains a happy ending where Romeo and Juliet both live, has never been performed. This dissertation explores the history of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet and the complicated process that resulted in the world-wide acceptance of Lavrovsky’s 1940 staging as the legitimate version of the ballet, despite Prokofiev’s protests. This dissertation debunks the general view that Prokofiev did not face censure or direct criticism in 1936, after the publication of two editorials in Pravda criticizing the music of Shostakovich and other Soviet composers. This study presents evidence that indicates this is untrue, that a planned 1936 production of Romeo and Juliet at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow was cancelled out of fear and caution in the aftermath of the two Pravda editorials. Romeo and Juliet is viewed in this dissertation as an on-going project rather than as a fixed and final product, as it is usually regarded. The project is considered in the larger context of the social, political and artistic environments of the time. The ii manuscript scores I worked with are compared to known printed scores, and the discrepancies are discussed and analyzed. The dissertation also brings to light a number of pre-compositional documents that were previously unknown. Two opposite interpretations of Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union in the 1930s have resulted in disparate political agendas viewing it as a turning point in Prokofiev’s career. Western musicologists traditionally have viewed it as a mistake, while Soviet scholars have seen it as the beginning of his richest creative period. This dissertation, using Romeo and Juliet as a case study, challenges the notion of a significant shift in Prokofiev’s compositional style, showing instead the remarkable continuity of the compositions written before and after his return. iii To Dave and Charlotte Wilson iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Margarita Mazo, for her invaluable support and guidance. I am grateful to the members of my committee, Lois Rosow and Donald Harris, and to Graeme Boone, Charles Atkinson, Irene Masing-Delic, and Vlady Steffel for their time and expertise. I would also like to thank the entire Musicology Department for providing me with a supportive environment throughout this process. My archival research in Russia, London, and Paris was made possible through fellowships and grants from the Ohio State University’s Graduate School, the School of Music, and the Center for Slavic and East European Studies. I am grateful for their generosity. I would like to thank Irina Medvedeva, Deputy Director of the Glinka Museum, Noëlle Mann, the archivist of The Serge Prokofiev Archive, and the archivists, librarians and staff at the various other archives and libraries I worked in for their support and patience. Special thanks goes to the Russian Research Institute for the Preservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage, especially Yuri Vedenin, Pavel Shulgin, Evgeniia v Andreyeva, Alexander Yeremeyev, and Sergei Pchyolkin. They provided me with invaluable assistance on so many levels; this project would not have been possible without their help. I would also like to acknowledge my teachers and mentors over the years, especially Jeanne Gray, Sarah Johnson, Howard Weiss, and Sandy Wilson, who helped instill me with a love of music and learning. Finally, I want to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support and encouragement. vi VITA November 17, 1964 . Born in Rochester, New York 1987 . B.M., Music Education, Crane School of Music Potsdam College, SUNY at Potsdam 1992 . M.A., Musicology, Eastman School of Music University of Rochester 1992-1999 . Graduate Student and Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University 1999-2003 . Lecturer The Ohio State University, Marion Campus FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Music vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract . .ii Acknowledgments . v Vita . vii List of Figures . .x List of Examples . xii List of Abbreviations . xiii Note on Transliteration and Translation . xiv Chapters: Introduction . .1 Methodology and Overview of Chapters . 5 1. Sergei Prokofiev: Two Historiographies . 12 Prokofiev’s Return to the Soviet Union . 24 Romeo and Juliet and Its Place in Prokofiev’s Work . 33 2. Setting the Stage: Theater and Dance in Russia in the Early Twentieth Century . 39 Vsevolod Meyerhold and Early Twentieth-Century Experimental Theater . .39 Sergei Radlov and His Approach to Theater . 43 Radlov’s 1935 Drama Production of Romeo and Juliet . 50 Russian Imperial Grand Ballet and Marius Petipa . 55 Sergei Diaghilev and the Ballets Russes . .59 3. The Collaborative Process and the Creation of Romeo and Juliet . 67 The Romeo and Juliet Project . .67 The January 1935 Outline of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet . .72 The May 1935 Compositional Plan of Romeo and Juliet . 79 Composition of the 1935 Piano Score of Romeo and Juliet . 95 viii 4. The Compositional Process: Blocks of Time . 101 Prokofiev’s Early Ballets and Pre-Compositional Timings. .102 Pre-Compositional Timings in Romeo and Juliet. 117 Prokofiev and Film Music . 119 Blocks of Time . 122 5. “All Kinds of Missteps”: Cancellation of the Bolshoi Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet . 135 The Undanceable Theory . .. .137 The Happy Ending Theory . 139 Return to the Tragic Ending . 142 Cancellation of the Bolshoi Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet . 148 Censorship and Romeo and Juliet . .150 6. “Never Was a Tale of Greater Woe Than Prokofiev’s Music For Romeo”: The Orchestral Suites, The Brno Premiere, and The 1940 Kirov Theater Production of Romeo And Juliet. 154 The Two Orchestral Suites From Romeo and Juliet . .156 The 1938 Brno State Theater Premiere of Romeo and Juliet . 159 The Creation of Leonid Lavrovsky’s Romeo and Juliet . .165 The 1940 Kirov Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet . .172 Critical Reception of Romeo and Juliet . 179 7. Conclusion . 185 Bibliography . 188 I. Archival Documents . .188 II. Books, Articles, Dissertations . 190 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 0.1 Chronology of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet . 9 3.1 Act I from a 1935 outline of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in Prokofiev’s hand. In the upper right hand corner, Prokofiev dated the document Jan. 1935, and labeled it as the plot of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (in abbreviated Russian: “Soderzhan Rom i Dzh Shekspira”). SPA, Notebook 27 (January-June 1935) . .75 3.2 Translation of Prokofiev’s Jan 1935 scenario outline. SPA, Notebook 27 (January-June 1935). 77 3.3 Act IV (the ‘Happy Ending’) of Romeo and Juliet from the May 1935 Compositional Plan (in Prokofiev’s shorthand Russian). RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 66, l. 2 r. 81 3.4 Text of the May 1935 Compositional Plan for Romeo and Juliet (incorporating changes made by Prokofiev during composition of the music). 82 4.1 Translation of pre-compositional plan for Trapeze (June 1924). 107 4.2 Translation of pre-compositional plan for The Steel Step, prologue and act I (August 11, 1925). 111 4.3 Translation of pre-compositional plan for On the Dnepr (January 1931). 115 4.4 Comparison of timings by number of the May 1935 pre-compositional plan and the September 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet. Bold indicates a discrepancy of more than thirty seconds. 117 4.5 Blocks of Time analysis of Act I, scene 2, the Balcony Scene. 129 x 5.1: Facsimile of orchestration notebook for Romeo and Juliet. The numbers 105 and 106 refer to the piano score manuscript. RGALI, fond 1929, op. 1, no. 61, l. 11 r. 145 6.1 Coordination of orchestral suites with the 1935 score (by number). 157 6.2 Chronological arrangement of the fourteen numbers comprising Romeo and Juliet suites one and two. 158 6.3 Program from the December 1938 production of Romeo and Juliet at the Brno State Theater. 160 6.4 Translation of the program of the 1938 Brno production of Romeo and Juliet (translation by Jeff Holdeman) . 161 6.5 Comparison the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet to the 1940 Kirov Theater production of the ballet. 173 6.6 Blocks of Time comparison of Act I, scene 2, the Balcony Scene of Romeo and Juliet in the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet and in the 1940 Kirov Theater production. 176 6.7 Text of libretto for Romeo and Juliet incorporating Lavrovsky’s changes. Compiled from typed document with changes and additions for Lavrovsky’s production marked in Prokofiev’s handwriting and compared with published libretto. RGALI, fond 1929, op. 1, no. 66, l. 7-10. Additions to the earlier version are bolded. Omissions are noted with [ ]. 181 6.8 Sections from the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet not included in the published version . 184 xi LIST OF EXAMPLES Example Page 4.1 “Romeo,” Block A . 125 4.2 “Romeo,” Block B . ..