End the Years Of Stagnation At the Bolshoi

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, every aspect of Russian life has fallen victim to the country's economic and political turmoil. And in recent months the flashpoint has been the very heart of Russian culture, the Bolshoi Theater.


In September, a decree from President Boris Yeltsin ordered that the theater adopt a contract system. The reasoning behind this move was that it would end the stagnation brought on by the old Soviet system which virtually amounted to lifetime tenure.


It seemed to make sense, but many of those who dance, sing or play at the Bolshoi do not see things quite the same way.


It is easy to understand why. An orchestra soloist, who is making about $130 a month, can hardly be expected to welcome the loss of his or her only real economic advantage: job security. But it is exactly that ticket-for-life mentality that has to change if the Bolshoi is to regain its standing as one of the world's great cultural institutions.


The resistance to Yeltsin's plan is a measure of just how deeply entrenched the Soviet mentality remains. There has been talk of a strike at the theater. Battle lines are being drawn between the theater and its overseer, the Culture Ministry.


All this comes at a time when the Bolshoi is under increasing pressure to end its long artistic stagnation, which has been characterized by programs featuring revampings of old material. Yury Grigorovich, artistic director and chief choreographer, is largely blamed for this state of affairs. As might be expected, he is leading the chorus against the new contract system.


The Culture Ministry did not help matters by confirming and then backing away from reports that former Bolshoi principal Vladimir Vasiliev had been asked to replace Grigorovich. The ministry's waffling has done even more to demoralize the theater and its supporters.


And, as if all this were not enough, the almost 150-year-old theater building is no longer structurally sound. A $300 million reconstruction plan has been drawn up, but until a viable fund-raising plan ? with proper accountability ? is implemented, the theater will remain crippled.


The Bolshoi's growing pains, then, are both artistic and economic, and the intertwining of these problems makes them all the more difficult to solve.


What the theater needs now is leadership. Grigorovich is doing the Bolshoi and his own reputation a disservice by hanging on to a past that the times and the theater have left behind. He should step down. No one can say now whether Vasiliev is the answer, for great dancers do not always make great directors, but he deserves a chance. His reputation and vision offer at least the hope that grand times may lie ahead.