Diaghilev's Ballets Russes in the American Midwest

The Ballets Russes's wild success in Europe and the international fame of its star dancers stirred the imaginations of Americans across the country, many of whom knew little about the company beyond reports of scandalous premiers in Paris and pictures in Vanity Fair and Vogue. When Diaghilev arrived in the United States without Nijinsky and Karsavina, the fashionable dance troupe seemed to have lost some of the splendor seen in glossy magazines. Poor box office receipts, unfamiliar venues and audiences, exhausted and poorly paid musicians and dancers, and mixed reviews in the press did not help. But the reception of the Ballets Russes in America was more multifaceted than a cursory glance at the reviews may suggest. While we cannot deny that Diaghilev's US tour failed to live up to expectations, it is important to remember that what might constitute a flop for one audience may be a revelation for another.

The tepid reception of the US tours of Diaghilev's Ballets Russes in 1916 and 1917 needs to be seen in light of the company's previous successes in Europe and the absence of their star, Vaslav Nijinsky, for the 1914 season. After Nijinsky got married, against the wishes of Serge Diaghilev, his lover and employer, the impresario dismissed the dancer. Nijinsky ended up in Budapest with his pregnant Hungarian wife when the Great War broke out in 1914; the Ballets Russes shut down, and the dancers scattered across Europe. Aside from some sporadic events, the company lay dormant until it re-emerged in New York City in January 1916.¹

With war raging across Europe, neutral America seemed a safe place to restart the troupe, and Diaghilev could not afford to stay closed for much longer. The scandals of 1912 and 1913 caused by Nijinsky's ballets L'Aprèsmidi d'un Faune, Jeux, and Le Sacre du Printemps may have sold out theaters and set the press abuzz, but as Hanna Järvinen has argued, "they [also] alienated important financiers of the organization and made [Diaghilev] doubt their worth."² An American tour seemed to be the answer.

The US public had been eager for the Diaghilev troupe's arrival since 1909.³ The large American newspapers had regularly featured reports of scandalous European premieres, and other troupes of Russian dancers had already found success touring America. Previous studies by Lynn Garafola and Hanna Jarvinën on the ballet's two American tours during the war years paint a vivid picture of the financial, cultural, societal, and artistic issues that plagued these endeavors; however, they are primarily focused on the extended New York City runs, buffeted by press clippings from other major metropolitan centers (Boston, San Francisco, DC, and Chicago).⁴ What about the other fifty-five cities across the United States and Canada that hosted the Ballets Russes between 1916 and 1917; what about the smaller venues, especially, in the Midwest? While New York City and Chicago audiences may have had a wider array of theatrical and musical models to compare to Diaghilev's troupe, audiences in Dayton, Ohio (where I currently live) and other small and mid-sized cities responded to the company more favorably in ways that reflect their unique demographics and performing arts histories. Perhaps it is time to re-examine the standard narrative that the company was a flop with American audiences. Although Diaghilev returned to Europe without the millions of American dollars he may have hoped for, he left an America richer in more ways than he could have ever realized.

This essay investigates the tours' impact in America's Midwest. Examining the population of the cities Diaghilev's troupe visited reveals a mix of major metropolitan areas where the company spent most of its time, and a number of mid-sized and small cities (see Appendix 1). The second tour covered many more cities, and most of their performances took place in small and mid-sized cities, unlike the long runs in Chicago and New York during the first tour (see Appendix 2). This essay examines the Ballets Russes's legacy in just...