Interview with Dominique Mercy, 9/5/2022 (3/3)

We don't have much material about Rolf Borzik. He wasn't, possibly not, a person who would be giving interviews. There's not a single interview with him.

Yes, probably at that time there wasn't the thought of collecting such material, and the focus was given completely on Pina Bausch. Not that Rolf came peau à peau in the work, still he was a very important and meaningful collaborator behind Pina.

What kind of sensibilities were at play there? Were they working together?

I think Rolf Borzik was excessively present. They were sharing their lives with ups and downs. Rolf was, from the very beginning, very much involved in Pina's work. In the first works, even if he didn't take officially part in it, like in Fritz, Iphigenie auf Tauris, there were already suggestions from him in there. They were constantly sharing ideas and concepts. We often sat after rehearsals either in the flat, at restaurants, or bars and we talked about every detail, everything. Ideas would just pop up; he was drawing very often on a napkin in the restaurant. There're a lot of his sketches, which were made on restaurants napkins. I think that the fact that he became such a close collaborator and so close creatively with Pina came organically with time. At one point it was obvious that those two artists had to mix and put their ideas together. It was not just Rolf Borzik, Jan Minarik would be also a very beautiful, authentic source of information. He was one of the closest friends of Rolf. Also, for their taste in photography, Jan Minarik took a lot of nice, interesting pictures, and so did Rolf. So, they were exchanging a lot about this. Furthermore, Rolf was not just concerned about the room or set design, he was also bringing a lot of ideas about costumes, about a lot of things: props and objects. It was difficult to say whether an idea came from Pina or Rolf. Of course, I am not talking about the choreography, but I think it's wrong to think that Rolf was just concerned with the sets. His influence was much wider, bigger than that, still it influenced the sets. The set was something which had consequences and influenced the behavior of people. Like the dry leaves, the autumn leaves in Bluebeard. In Bluebeard there is this constant noise of people dragging the leaves, walking, dancing, by moving around. In Arien with the water, it's different if you have to move, dance and act in dry clothes or in completely wet clothes on a surface with three, four centimeters of water. It makes a huge difference to how you behave, and so does the noise. I think that the fact that you bring natural elements in an inside room, like a stage, adds and gives other impressions. In Arien, for instance, since the water has to be at a certain temperature, when you enter the house, you feel this humidity, this warmth given by the water. The noise that people make as they start to walk, I'm not talking about the dancing, but just by walking, by being in the water, it installs a visual and an acoustic environment in the room. It's different if you have the same in nature, having this in a closed room creates another dimension. All those things were later redone by a lot of directors in the theater and also in dance, but at that time, he was really one of the first people to dare to do this somehow on stage. As far as I remember, maybe there were a bunch of people doing this before, but I don't think so. I think we were really pioneering that. Now, everybody does it somehow in one way or another.

Because the sets and all of this – the water and everything, changed the quality of the movement, Pina had to accept and work with that and somehow.

Of course, that's what I'm saying. They were sharing ideas, and they really had a lot of confidence in each other. The scope of the field in which Rolf took part and shared ideas with Pina was completely general. Without making any comparison, Peter Pabst afterwards continued to work in this idea of bringing natural elements, and having interior rooms, having parts that would influence the action and the being onstage: like the stones of the wall in Palermo Palermo, water in different works, and rocks; all of which influence our being on stage. These elements were a sort of a continuation of what Rolf Borzik started together with Pina. I want to add that Rolf was much more invasive in a very good sense than Peter Pabst. Peter had at the beginning, ideas or suggestions about costumes. But his collaboration with Pina was, as far as I could judge, essentially about the room, the environment: how the the piece will fit within the set? How will it influence each other? The dancer influencing the set or the set influencing the dancer. Which is a very rich and beautiful element. But Rolf Borzik would sit most of the time at the rehearsal, he'd watch every rehearsal, as much as he could. He was also the one that created most of the costumes, or brought ideas for props, objects. This influenced the work or interfered with the situation on stage. So, Rolf Borzik had a huge part: sharing the creative work with Pina Bausch.

You mentioned the water, the humidity in the room, the smell of the leaves, the sounds of rustling leaves...

Bringing animals on stage: the hippopotamus in Arien, the crocodiles in Keuschheitslegende. I remember there is one of his drawings refering to animals – I've forgotten which piece – it is a yellow dress with black strips refering to a very busy bee. You can see that there are a lot of drawings: a variety which lends us special costume for a special idea, special people, different ways of being.

The pieces of Pina Bausch are carefully composed. Every detail is set: the humidity in the air, the music that comes from the right or from the left, here's one small thing happening there. I also see innovation in the world of theater or in dance. More and more one sees in Pina Bausch: a fine sensibility, where she taught the public how to look deeper. Did you feel a development in her in the sense of how careful she was [in the composition] throughout the years?

With the time it was clear, on one side I think, Pina's pieces have a very cinematic side - let's say simply like this. That's why it's very difficult to film, of course depending on the scenes, but there were some moments in some pieces where a lot of things are happening at the same time. They are all important and influence each other. As an audience you have a choice to go wherever you want. You have a general, wide spectrum of human beings, you're able to see by looking in one or the other direction, but at one point you have to make a choice, it's your decision. And if you want to see more, you come another time, eventually you may look at the same things, because they are more attractive to you, but you have a chance to see many different things.

The audience have the complexity of the scene and the difficulty to film ...

Because when you film the the cameraman, or the director has to make the decision for you and forces you to have one way of looking. You know and. I think I'm stepping out of the question, but it's okay. It happened a little bit with Wim Wenders when he did the film Pina. I was not completely in agreement with his choices, and the pieces he chose to film, and maybe it was because of the 3D. I always thought it would be interesting to film Pina's pieces from the inside, although it's a very difficult decision. Actually, all of Pina's pieces are made for being seen from the front. Even thou some of them were done outdoors, like Café Müller or Sacre with the audience surrounding the scene, being almost being part of the set as in Avignon. There you had the audience on stage on the on the outside of the glass wall. There it gave a different perspective from the people who're in front, so I don't know what impression it made for them to have this perspective. So, most of Pina's pieces are made for being seen from the front. The formations are made to be looked at from the front, the timing, when people come in or come out, it's all coming for her being at the center of the house.

She sharpened our eyes as an audience to see more and more details.

Yeah, with Pina you learned – or not, depending on each person – to get a sense of timing and room. Because for her timing was very important, like the time you take to come in. Where do you start to come in? This is something which refers to the experience she had with Anthony Tudor. She cherished to mention one experience she had with Tudor, I think it was for Lilac Garden, well, it doesn't matter which piece. Anthony Tudor questioned a dancer, who was coming on stage by asking: "What was happening outdoor? What was happening on the other side?" To have the knowledge of where do you come from, when you come on stage and where do you go to? And this is something, I think, that Pina without really explaining, nor even demanding, she would bring you there or you will have this sense. It's different if you're just waiting to come on stage at the edge of the curtain, or if you take one or two or three steps back. And how do you prepare yourself before you get in. There're some situations you need to just come in like this, and there're some situations, you need to have something that happened to you before. This is something that was for me very obvious and very strong in Pina's work. This timing off and onstage, and also where do you place yourself, how do you prepare yourself? And if you are in a situation where you are on stage, one point when you have just to stay there or you sense that you have to be even moving a little bit. Not just being at the place you've been told to be, but also to have a physical relation with the space and the people around you. Not just being there because someone told you: "that's where I want you to be", also when you just have to put a chair on the stage. Hans Züllig said this very nicely in one documentaries. Saying that very often it's said that Pina was a very good choreographer and it all seems to be so easy, but in the contrary it was something that [demands great skill] – he said in German „es ist ein grosses Können“. In the background there is a lot of knowledge of how to fill the space, to have the sense of how space has to be filled, and also the timing, how to get in and how to get out. Sometimes she would ask you something and you will have to think two or three times to realize the reason why she asked you to do this. Because sometimes you think:  "why don't I go there directly", but she'd ask you to first come, maybe take a time to go back to the place, you could have done it right away, but no, there was something. Something that when you realize, when you understand afterwards, it's so evident because it's telling something, it is telling something for the timing and it's telling something for your being on stage, for your role, it gives you the time to enter differently for what you are you going to do?

Maybe this became obvious and natural. I mean, it's a lot of work as Züllig says, behind this. But it also took place naturally, because the pieces are made from so many different little blocks which at one point are put together to create a whole piece. That's the way she was working doing little things, then putting them together, reducing, adding. At one point she'd think: okay, this block works by itself, so now, I work on another block, at one point seeing which block fits best with which one, and when they fit, how do they fit? How to make them work out and fit by being juxtaposed, one before, another after. This goes back to the question of how to use the music for this, which we discussed the last time.

Following the foundation of those years working with Rolf Borzik intertwined as they were artistically, at one point she went on without him, because of his death...

Sorry to make a little addition, it's because as way you mention it, I have another thought: and unfortunately, this ended, stopped somehow, but Rolf Borzik was starting to film – Hans Pop kept filming very often when he could; but Rolf Borzik was filming, taking pictures, during rehearsals, normal rehearsals, then dress rehearsals and also some performances. He started to film – tell me if I am wrong – from completely different perspectives. I don't remember which piece now, maybe Kontakthof. Eventually he started to film not at the back of the house, but he put the camera from another perspective, much nearer to the stage, filming a little bit from underneath. I think he started to experiment with the camera. I don't know where and how this would go. Just to mention that his curiosity was very wide.

To solve the problem of having five centimeters of water on the stage, it's not a trivial thing to do.

Especially at that time, because there was not the experience of it, you know.

So there was this wonderful side to him that, as you say, where would these media experiments go? That was very interesting.

It's also interesting to think that one of his first cooperations was as a costume designer: as part of the work on stage was the costumes of Thoas in Iphigenie auf Tauris. Which is not only the idea of a costume, but also an idea of the role of this person: this big imposing costume, then this guy comes out of it and suddenly he looks very fragile and thin. Those two sides of him: the outside look of power and frightening, and suddenly, getting out of this, a fragile being. Being fragile and trying to be frightening and becoming less frightening. I mean, this that just to mention...

Her craft growing throughout all of those years of experience and going back and adding one more layer to the work that she's already had done...

Well, I don't know how to answer this, because it's just something that continued going from piece to piece. I think it's something that's growing naturally. Naturally selective, if you take Wiesenland as an example. Wiesenland is a very good example from the collaboration with Peter Pabst and Pina where the sets suddenly play a very important part and influence the situations onstage. The set at the beginning is a big wall, a green wall with dripping water and a little space with the water at the end of this wall. And shortly before the end of the first part, before the break, this big wall suddenly starts to go up and moves, rolling down the stage and becoming small cliffs; and the space where you can normally move is now very much reduced to the front suddenly. Everything now takes place at the front. All the scenes, most of it had been done in the studio without the sets, and suddenly you have to readjust, to rethink. Then you adjust to the situation, and it becomes something different; it takes suddenly another meaning by being influenced by the topography, not the geography, but the structural situation. This is one very good example of this collaboration and influence on the work with Peter Pabst and Pina on the on the piece.

I was going to give another example: I think it was for Kinder. We were looking for a solution for something in Für die Kinder von gestern, heute und morgen. I really believed that for this moment I could've an idea and I was quite sincere and suggested it. I don't remember if it was for him, her or that we should come running in. She said: “Oh, yeah, yeah, sure. That's very new.”  Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I didn't say anything. And on one side, I mean, she was right because she was looking for a certain solution. It says a lot, because Pina was not consciously looking for something new, trying to change the art or the conception of art. She was looking for what was needed at that moment, and of course with the time you realize that some things have been used more than others. Is it really necessary to use the same thing if you can find something more on the point or more interesting? I would hope now that more people would have these thoughts, to look at what they do and see that "Yes. That's very new. Thank you." I am not being sarcastic, but a little bit, you know. This is just to say that of course, with the time, with the years, you have more experience, more baggage which forces you to be more selective or more choosing, in a more drastic and conscious way. Does that make sense?

The point of always being in search for the correct way, or for a way to be into the one piece and find solutions, has to do with experience.

Which is also sort of a paradox because if somebody looks, maybe not specially carefully, from piece to piece you'll find a lot of similarities, a lot of things you can recognize from one piece to the other. You have reminders or things which recur, which I think are normal. I mean, if you look at paintings or writings, you can recognize who wrote a certain book, or who painted... you can recognize a Rembrandt from a Jan van Eyck, or Anthony van Dyck.

So, throughout the years you get that kind of signature, that kind of way of talking, but still, every piece becomes something different, has a different statement of also the influence just by doing the co-productions, it brought different colors to every piece of. Is there a question there?

The set design, of course. I mean, even though the sets mostly come quite late, its influence and the difference from piece to piece will comes also from the sets. Sometimes the idea of a set comes early enough to influence Pina's questions. I remember that at one point, without knowing what the set would be, she started to ask questions about water: what you can do in water, or how to get from one point to the other with ... I don't remember now precisely the questions, but you would think ok, water. hmm. Without knowing what the set would be, independently from situation of the dance carpet. For instance, in Vollmond, which until the very last moments, we thought we wouldn't be able to show the piece because the situation with the dance floor was too dangerous: too slippery, and then we didn't have the right balance of what sort of shoes we should have to not slip and fall down. What sort of paints or textures should the floor have, so we don't fall down, what if we are barefooted on the wet floor and so on. I don't remember if it's just shortly before the dress rehearsal that they found a situation to make it possible, until then we thought we might not be able to show the piece at the right time. So, this is one point which influenced the work, but I think what also makes a big difference is also the fact that co-producing the work and being in residency in different parts of the world, influences the questions of Pina, and how we answer those questions. I also think that gradually Pina changed, I mean, gradually. As I said, in one of the previous sessions, in the first pieces she gave us a lot of material, choreographic movement material, which she worked on at the beginning, and made something out of it mixing with our own material and we'd use it the way we wanted. Gradually she stepped back, more and more until the moment when she didn't give any more movement material from her own. And the only choreographic movement material in the pieces would be the results which came out of the questions she asked. Depending on what kind of dancers or sort of of persons that came to the company, from year to year, it would bring another quality, a different flavor, different colors, dynamics. Consciously or unconsciously, this would influence the pieces.

The one production that you did when you returned from the South American tour, going back to 1980, was "Bandoneon".

Oh, yes.

Do you have recollections just when I just said Bandoneon to you?

Well, of course, there're two things: when you say Bandoneon is the tango. This wonderful music: tango. Then, talking about the rehearsals, there was this moment when I came out wearing a tutu, and did those balletic port de bras and movements and being broken at it. For me, it was very strong. These sorts of things come out, somehow, from somewhere and you cannot really consciously place it. In the rehearsal she just asked me to come in, wearing this tutu and to just be in the room there. You know, then I had this moment of really not knowing what to do with it and was a little bit ashamed, still feeling good about it. I even can't remember if I did or if she asked me to do pliés. Maybe the most difficult thing was to try to reconstruct this, to feel and go back to this situation. That's the beautiful part of the work: to try to put yourself back into something like this, to try to feel it again. This is one of the beautiful sides of it, not only to do it the first time, but to reconstruct, to find it back each time in one way or another. It's funny, because retrospectively, it made me reflect on it. I don't think I was conscious of it when we first did it, but then I had to realize that this was more like a ballerina or a diva. When I worked with Manuel Alum in New York, we did a piece... What was the piece? It was on the Italian concerto from Bach. (sings) It was a role about this New York female dancer that had a voice like this. She had a very high voice, very nice person. You probably know her. I don't remember her name. She had this green dress and jewels and things. I remember she was beautiful, dramatic and strong, and I would take a bow and break. Same as I do in Bandoneon and I didn't realize when we did it first that something was there in the memory. Just afterwards I realized: Oh, this is what I was doing in that piece for Manuel Alum, that's very strange. It is something that is very strong for me, I really love this part of Bandoneon.

But talking about Bandoneon, this is one of the most controversial pieces from Pina. She almost didn't dare to show it. For instance, there's this moment where Nazareth Panadero is reading this poem from Heinrich Heine: Im wunderschönen Monat Mai and she repeats it, she comes like three times, I think.  Downstage, in the front, she starts to read this. She reads it completely, then she starts again and is interrupted, then she starts but doesn't come to read it. It takes a lot of time. And there is this big repetition in Bandoneon where you do the same thing, the same lift. So, it was really daring at that time because it was taking a lot of time and Pina almost didn't dare. She thought it might be too long. We were really behind her, saying: "No, we have to do it". We really wanted to have this; this we have to take this time. We have to stay really behind her, to have the courage to go in that direction. Which she probably would have done anyway, but sometimes she needed some confirmation or assurance from the people surrounding her.

Like in Danzón with the music from The Dying Swan, she was about to change it and I said: "No, no, it's so beautiful. Please, please keep this music."; and she did. Bandoneon was amazing, we showed it three times at the Theater de la Ville. The first time was a huge scandal, people didn't accept this timing, this sort repetitions: redo it two or three times, then again, and the time passes, we're taking time, just waiting onstage, standing there and almost nothing happened. Someone is making a bridge [a yoga movement], until he cannot endure anymore, this suffering over time: people would not accept this. It was a strong reaction from the audience, but also from the critics. Then, we did it again a few years later. We came back with it and it was a huge success. Same theater and probably for the same audience, in part, it was a huge success. Incredible. Everywhere: on stage, the critics, the press. After she passed away, we came back with Bandoneon. And it was almost like the first time, and we thought: “Do we have to start all over again? “, "but where were we? What happened?" And it was good because it makes you realize that nothing should be taken for granted. It's always about the moment. Even for a piece that was made in the eighties, now being shown in 2010, 11 in Paris.

The repertoire from the year 1980: it was actually the very first time there was just one dance premiere in the season – one new work in the season. Which was also a big thing!

Yes. It started in 1980. Consciously or unconsciously – we never talked about it, she started to construct a repertory, and to have one new piece in the fall or in the winter, plus there'd be a revival from an older piece. Until then, it was always two new pieces.

By 1988 there was a revival of Bandoneon, then again in 1992. These are some of the dates that I have here.

Pina had already passed away when we did it the third time, I think, it was maybe 2011, 12. It was amazing because during the performance, all evening, there was that reaction from the audience. You could feel the discrepancy from the time before – different feelings. We thought: "Oh my God, it's like the first time. What happened in the meantime? What happened? Why?" Suddenly again, people had difficulties with taking a certain time or taking the time to look at something in a different way.

The season planning: which pieces are being shown? Of course, there are requests from one theater or another, from one place that hasn't seen this piece or another, then Paris every year... But they's also a sensibility to figure out what's going on right now? Possibly with the world, and possibly with herself or with the company.

Of course, there's also the question of what it means, or what does it do, if you have a revival and the new piece. Although you never know one year before, how the new piece is going to look like. But it's also interesting to see what the interaction between a revival piece and the new creation. What time did it? Where are we, regarding this piece? Somehow, it's also interesting.

In Nelken there is that incredible moment where you start to do manéges and entrechat sis Many people, sometimes interpreted that as making a point about ballet and Tanztheater. I remember you say exactly that: it comes out of the experience of how to express a feeling within our experience; even in Ship there's a ballet barre.

I mean, maybe it's a little bit different, what I'm doing in Nelken to the other things which you can find in other pieces. We could make a list, but I don't know if it's so interesting. There're references from Pina Bausch, and a big respect to classical ballet. A recognition to what it means for a dancer. What does it do for a dancer? What is it carrying in itself? What is a port de bras carrying, if it's made with a lot of sincerity, honesty and feeling? What does it carry, what does it say? There is generosity in it, it's a filter for what you can give, or feel, transmit and share. I think there was a big respect from Pina Bausch, a true love and respect for ballet. Now, referring to this Nelken moment, in a practical sense, was the original question: "What can you do, what can you best do, or what are you proud of?" That's the one question that Lutz Förster answered with The Man I Love. Something he'd just learned from a speech disabled guy in North America, Los Angeles or San Francisco in California. He was very proud of being able to coordinate it and had just learned it. Also, Jan Minarik cutting the onions, for instance, and there were other different things. I think I already said that I didn't dare to say it, but Urs Kaufmann was sitting beside me, and at one point he said: "Why don't you do all those things that you can do, those entrechat sis and tour en l'air– and _manége. But I didn't dare, I was very shy, and I thought I just cannot do those things. He wouldn't stop to encourage me and say that. I don't know if Pina heard it and said it in the way she sometimes did: "yes, yes, sure, go on and do it". And then finally I did it, then it became this scene where I'm using this to protest. Not to just to simply protest in way of a revindication, but using this as a vector of a huge struggle, and sadness, and rage, as in: "yes I can do all those things but what else?" It was just like screaming for help: You know, I can do all this, but what's the point of it?" But surely, it never crossed my mind, neither Pina's mind, to make fun or to be critical of the ballet vocabulary. Not at all. To add to what I just said, about Pina and the respect for ballet, it was for her it not debatable, it was very important that we had ballet class every day. She always mentioned Kurt Jooss, at the school was very important to have contemporary classes, modern classes, but also ballet for the structure, for the language, for what it gives you inside. For Pina, it was very important, very, very important.

I think, very early on you were teaching and giving warm up for the company, is that so?

Well, for the company not really, maybe a few times. You know, professional dancers don't like so much to be corrected and reminded where there might be a better way to do something than the way they are used. So, I didn't enjoy so much to teach the company. As Pina Bausch took over the direction of the dance department, after Hans Züllig left – if I remember well, he only agreed to leave if Pina would take over, she had already asked Malou Airaudo to teach there at the school. I think she asked both Lutz Förster and me, at the same time, to teach at the school regularly. And then she was a little bit annoyed that I took it so seriously, because she thought this was taking, in my heart or in my time, more space than she wished, somehow. I like very much to teach at the school, to teach the students. For most of them, there is a beautiful exchange. It's nice to see how people develop and make their own language out of the one you try to teach them or to bring to them.

What were you teaching?

I was trying to follow the ideas, follow the footsteps of Hans Züllig, of his teaching: mixing ballet vocabulary and structure with Pina's and Züllig's movement, also to bring my own quality and movement. I was mixing these elements, trying to make an organic mix, and hoped that it was an interesting mix.

I want to get that, a little in detail: can you maybe describe what was Züllig's way of working?

Züllig was working using a lot of ballet structure and working a lot with – Jean Cébron was also doing this very strongly – a sense of orientation in space, in the room, influencing your way of being; regarding the different diagonals, the different perspectives and points in the room. Also, working a lot with the difference in stances, in being labil [delicate, frail, unstable] in your axis, in contrast to being stable; all the labil work with curves and the uncentered work, relating to the center but off-center.

Okay, wonderful. So, we can relate that to Sigurd Leeder and Kurt Jooss' system. Also, Cébron wrote quite extensively about it.

The thing is, Jean Cébron was much more akribic [meticulous], much more detailed. Hans Züllig would go more into movements and sensations, which was where I felt more confident.

The Folkwang School became – it was already – more and more an important place, where people were groomed to be in the company.

Well, they were not groomed to be in the company, but it was certainly a place where Pina had the very strong connection to: first of all, because she was for a certain time – even if she was not there as often as she'd have wished or wanted to – the director of the dance department. It was, of course, a very cherished place, a very important place for her: that's where she studied, she always tries to keep the quality of it. She was always informed. Malou Airaudo was very active also in connecting Pina to it; she'd tell her you should look in this class, there are a lot of interesting students, or there's a particular student you should come, and see the performance. She was active in informing Pina about what was going on in the school. Pina would go back and forth very often, and she started to revive regularly The Rite of Spring. She would engage, regularly, students from the third or fourth years to be part of the performances for The Rite of Spring. There would be more and more students coming to the auditions. The fact that most of the company members would be ex-students from the school was not because they came from the school... maybe because they were coming from the school, they had this baggage, this quality which Pina was very sensitive to. So, there was a very strong connection with school, in fact there are a lot of dancers, or ex-dancers from the company who were ex-students from the school. But it was not officially thought that the school would be an automatic trampoline or door to the company.

Still, there are many stories of people, also coming from other places in the world, that she'd said: "oh, would you just go and spend some years studying here?"

Yeah, it happened a lot to people who auditioned, and she thought they were either too young, or still not strong enough technically, maybe not mature enough to compensate for the technical lag to enter the company. If she liked them, she would advise them to go to the [school] company because she knew the teaching staff. She knew who was teaching them, and what was happening in the company. Because she was interested in those people, she knew eventually that they would be there. Yes sure. This this yes.

Dancers come with sets of skills, levels of technical expertise, levels of artistry, or levels of personal inquiry. It's a wild question, I know, but what qualities make a good Pina Bausch dancer, when we look at people coming to learn this repertoire.

First of all, I refute [those terms]. I never liked that: after Pina died, some members of the company referred to the label of "Pina Bausch Dancer". I always refuse to label somebody as a Pina dancer. I don't know what that is: a Pina dancer. Okay, this is said: I hope it's not only said, I hope it'll be heard. If I try to remember what was important for Pina, it was something which she can't explain. It was something, some quality she felt, that she sensed in a person, in a human being as she was in the room, at the moment she had to decide to engage somebody. At the same time, her feeling that it'd be interesting to work with this person, to go somewhere with that person. That was, I think, one of the first aspects that she would react toward one person. The other element – with a little bit of contradiction to this famous sentence that people love to repeat – that she was more interested by what makes people move than by the way they move, which has those two aspects: first is what I just said, "what makes people move" has to do with what I just mentioned,  something that you can't explain, but you can just feel from one person, and second, since there are a pieces in the repertory like The Rite of Spring which is quite demanding, and some solos in pieces, which depending on the piece are more or less demanding technically. So, she also had to look for people who have a certain baggage, certain technique, certain knowledge. And she'd be sensitive to this: how much technique somebody has and how they are using it. She was certainly not interested in people that use technique for showing themselves. She'd be interested in how people use this technique to dance, how to be there. Some of the of pieces of the repertoire are demanding at a certain level, which is something you cannot just put aside, because you have to be able to cope. Sacre demands a certain thing which you have to serve. Pina was also experimenting, even with some interesting experiments, like in Kontakthof, where she changed a few things, both for the elderly people and for the young people. But still, Pina had a sharp eye for the technical rules: when the foot has to be turned out, it has to be turned out, when the foot has to be stretched, it has to be stretched. She was very clear and very sensitive to this. I remember – I won't say the name, but I think it's important to know that side of Pina – she was casting for The Rite of Spring for one revival, and one dancer, a member of the company, was dancing very nicely, actually, but she was disturbed because she didn't have nice feet. There is a little solo in The Rite of Spring and the feet are important. It wasn't a problem when she would dance other solos, she was a beautiful dancer, but for that moment, for this solo in The Rite of Spring, Pina uncast her because she was disturbed by her feet and put somebody else there. Of course, you cannot be, as they say in France [plus royaliste que le roi] more royalist than the king, but this it's a part of Pina's eyes, her way of looking at things.

Sacre is a very demanding physical piece, but it's very different from the demands of Café Müller. Can you tell us about some of your experience as a dancer performing both pieces? Which is a little difficult because Café Müller is such a personal piece for you.

The thing is: Café Müller involves a physical demand and a very strong emotional demand as well. There is one moment which is very demanding physically, and because there is this emotional level on top of it, it makes it a trying and tiring piece, for sure. Pina used to say – because at one point we were the two original creators in the cast: "both of us, we'll keep doing Café Müller as long we can. I will quit only when you quit." Yeah, she quit before me somehow. But nevertheless... Sorry. Well, the difference is with The Rite of Spring", for me it's on a different emotional level. Because the physicality is so strong, and the demands on the technical side of the choreography is also so strong, together with the theme of the piece, there is something that takes you through the piece. And of course, it's very physical, very tiring, but there's something nourishing about it, a nourishing energy somehow. Obviously, that would be the difference: Café Müller carries on one side, technical demands, but most of it is this constant emotional situation and tensions, which is very trying – in French éprouvant [trying, gruelling]. I repeat myself, but in The Rite of Spring there is this torrent, this flow of energy, not a fighting energy, but this sort of ritual as in this moment where the women and the men – those young people, are competing from both sides for chosen one: the sacrifice. This is nourishing somehow. The demands of the choreography, the physicality nourishes you as you do it. It's exhausting. As I told you before, I remember the first time I did it, when I learned as I came back to the company, I thought I'd never be able to do this piece again, because it was so exhausting. But it's fun. I mean, it's a wonderful physical experience; also, with the earth – talking about natural elements, this is one of the first strong natural elements which Rolf Borzik brought to the pieces, it was for The Rite of Spring*.

Do you have recollections of the one time that you did with live music?

Yes, it was in Bochum as Gerard Mortier invited the company for the Ruhrtriennale, don't ask me which year it was. We did it again with live music when Pina passed away. This very first time it was in big hall in Bochum for the Ruhrtriennale, I forgot the name [Jahrhunderthalle Bochum]. It was a huge space, and I think we did with the plexiglass walls and lots of chairs everywhere. I don't remember if the stage was a little bit up, I think it was a little bit higher, because it would be impossible to have the musicians at the same level than us. When we did it again, we had just one female singer for The Fairy Queen and Dido & Aeneas aria. The first time with Pina, in Bochum, there were two women, one singer for the The Fairy Queen arias and one singer for the Dido & Aeneas aria, for the lament [When I Am Laid in Earth], and of course, one baritone [for Next, Winter Comes Slowly]. We were skeptical because we're used to a certain version of music to constantly dance to – we had the recording of Janet Baker for the Dido & Aeneas  lament [When I Am Laid in Earth], we do it normally with the tape. So, it's of course, you're used to a certain version which you like very much: you're used to the timing, the color of the voice, and so many different things. Then again, it's always so exciting to do it with a live orchestra. There's always something so beautiful, there is a warmth, which you don't have when it's with the tape, although you get used to it, still you realize that when the music is live, even time if you miss some things in it, there is something different, which is really beautiful. But the challenge for Café Müller is on a very technical side of it: since there're those chairs flying in different directions and the person, Jean Laurent Sasportes in that case, had to be extremely careful, because very often, the chairs land at the very front, downstage. You really have to be careful that they don't fall into the orchestra, which is a real danger, a concrete risk. Somehow, it never happened. The other issue is with Sacre, depending on how you run – the edge of the dance carpet over which the earth is layed, it's not far from orchestra pit – you have to be careful that musicians in the orchestra don't get this earth on their instruments, or on their heads.

Talking about Sacre with live music – also a technical question, but how is the sound environment? I mean, when you're working with a live orchestra, you have some sounds coming from one side and some sounds coming from the other side. Keeping the timing as one is used to the recording might be different.

No. It's a fact, you're right. Actually, which I never really thought about, because it never appeared as a problem.

Might be because of the quality of the music, because there are some pieces that you are used to following certain instrument that gives the beat and then all of a sudden you just hear (sings) [a different sound].

Oh, yeah! There was a very strong example when we first did The Rite of Spring with live music in Paris. I remember we were in one of the first orchestra rehearsals on stage: there's this moment, we call the circle – it's sort of the ritual (sings). – Especially with something like The Rite of Spring, depending which version you have, some instruments are taking over others. This is completely possible, because it's not free, but almost in the score, so that sometimes you have other instruments taking over more space, but also you have variation in the tempi of the music. So, you have the color and also the tempo of the music. – I remember, they started to play something, and I mean literally "something", I said it in purpose, where we'd look at each other, then the dancers on stage stopped, and looked into the house, trying to find us, with such a eye as sort of saying: "What's going on? What are they playing now? Is that Sacre? Is that another piece?" It was just unrecognizable. It was just it was a different piece of music. We had to have a serious talk with the conductor to readjust and make him understand that this was just impossible. Because the choreography was written on a certain version, we had to find a possible compromise, which we did. Depending which conductor and which orchestra we were dancing with, during all those years, there were different orchestras and conductors we always had to adapt. You cannot just ask a conductor to have the exact same version as the Pierre Boulez version with the Cleveland Orchestra. The one we use is the first version. He recorded it twice with the Cleveland Orchestra, and we used the first one with Boulez and the Cleveland Orchestra. It has specific tempi, specific balance in the instruments, and the choreography depended on that, so there're compromises to be made, but too many. And I remember this first time it was just impossible, as an example.

Yeah, yeah. Sometimes there are things that're just impossible to do, the choreography sometimes goes to certain limits in speed and also in the spacing. If things are not coordinated, if one dancer is not hearing where he should go they crash.

I didn't know at that time, in Orpheus und Eurydike, in the third act, there is this very famous solo from the flute (sings). There is a cadenza at one point before going from one music piece to the other. I didn't know that this cadenza was actually quite free, because in many of the versions you hear, it's more or less the same cadenza from the flute. One of the the first times I heard it differently was one of the revivals in Paris. I don't know if it was the first or the second revival in Paris from Orpheus und Eurydike. As with Thomas Hengelbrock and his ensemble, probably it was a different flutist. Suddenly it went somewhere, and I thought: "What the hell is this? What is she playing? I mean, what's going on there?" I went to Thomas and I asked him and he said: "Well, actually she's free to play what she wants in this cadenza." And she had made that choice, which was so strange to us, so foreign. Once we understood it and since it is not a very important moment in the choreography – it's sort of a transition situation, it didn't make a huge difference. She's informed that it was very strange to us, so she found something else, but still something different than what we were used to, but it did work. Then, once you know, you get used to it, and it's fine. The same thing happened now when we did it in Fürth, the company just did it for the Gluck Festspiel. Not here, because that was with the Wuppertaler Orchestra and they did the same cadenza, but in the baroque orchestra in Fürth, the flutist had a completely different cadenza as well, and much longer somehow. So, it was (gestures), but we got used to it.

Café Müller is one of the pieces that has a small cast. There's six people in the cast, and because of that, possibly it has some flexibility to react to some events. There's one in Dresden, after the River Elbe flooded, there was a benefit performance of Café Müller. When the company came back, I think from Greece. Ex-Intendant [General Director] Holk Freytag was the director of the theater in Dresden. You went on to perform in Dresden for the victims of the floods. Do you remember that?

Now that you mention, yes. I forgot where we did it.

It was the Intendant [General Director] Holk Freytag that was here in Wuppertal.

Yes. But I completely forgot where we did it, in which space?

Still the stage sets have to be moved and that takes a lot of organization, but as far as the cast there is more flexibility. Another example was when Hans Züllig died. I believe there was a performance in his honor.

Yeah, yeah. You mean, the point is that we did sometimes Café Müller without The Rite of Spring?

Yeah, we did a few times. I think the first time we did it, it was when we started to go back touring in Italy. We had been there before once or twice, but this was a starting point for coming to Italy more often. It was when we did Sacre in Parma for the Teatro Due. The only pieces of the set we had were the table, the chairs and the turning door, other than that we just had their room, with concrete floor, like in Nancy. This was, after Nancy, the first time we did it again by itself, and without the set, just the turning door at the back, plus the chairs, of course, and the table.

And then, you used the real walls for your scenes?

I don't even remember, but I guess, we had one corner. We didn't have the plexiglass walls at that time. We just had one plexiglass, which belongs to the set, and it might've been that we probably had that, but I'm not even sure if we had this. I can't remember.

I believe, Peter Pabst told me once that he created the plexiglass walls for Athen.

I think it was for Athen, and right after we did it, at first, I thought it was for Avignon, but I think it was for Athen, when we did it together with The Rite of Spring in the [Herodes Atticus Theater Athens]. With the plexiglass walls we did it few times here in Wuppertal, definitely in Avignon together with The Rite of Spring. We did with the plexiglas walls in different places depending on the viewing angle. But we did it also Café Müller alone. We also did it in Sardinia, I think it was Sassari. In Sardinia it was beautiful. I think I mentioned it the last time. It was the first time when the audience didn't laugh at the beginning, when I carry Malou, she always falls down, and come back in my arms, then Jan Minarik put her back in my arms, and she falls and repeated again, we accelerate, and then we do it by ourselves. That was the first time when the audience didn't laugh. That was in Sardinia. Otherwise, until then, and afterwards there were a few different audiences where that also happened. That the tension and the attention of the audience was so strong that they didn't laugh, but mostly they laughed. Then we did it also in Amsterdam, we did it in Munich, in a small theater, maybe the Prinzregententheater – a small, beautiful, small theater. It was a special event, I remember, because – this is just an anecdote on the one hand – it was the first time that the union of the technicians was so strong, since we always prepared the stage ourselves, there, we were not alowed to touch a single chair. So, we had to find a way, Jean Laurent would remember, we had to find either an excuse, or a good timing to place all the chairs the way we needed, but it was forbidden to touch furniture on the stage.

That was probably something, that you experience in the United States playing at BAM, because they also have those separation of functions.

Yeah. There is also the moment where you're not allowed to go on stage anymore, shortly before the show, and all those rules which are complete... That's the way it is.

Talking about chairs. At first you already mentioned that at first there were whatever chairs were found, then at some point, they were built specially for that, they were unified. But as far as the quantity: how many chairs are there? And what kind of variation, what kinds of parameters are there about how the space is set?

There are two parameters: one is space. Because the stage should be filled up with chairs, not so many as is becomes impossible for the person that takes care of us, to be on time, to get them out of our ways, without being too dangerous. It carries this danger in itself. So, here is what the room demands, to have the feeling that there're enough chairs, so there's a reason to be taken away. Especially for Pina, who has her eyes closed during the piece, [she hears] noise, that the chairs are making. It's a proportion: if there are not enough or too many chairs, [it is a problem]. If there are too many chairs, at some point they get piled up together, and it's like pushing a block of chairs, which has a completely different noise. And if it's not enough, then there is not enough noise for Pina, I mean, for the piece itself. Visually is mixed with what you see and what you hear. This is synonymous of danger: this noise, suddenly, of a chair going in any possible direction, or being pushed away. If there are not enough chairs, then it gets too thin, acoustically and visually. But don't ask me how many chairs. I've no idea. I don't know. It depends on the room, which is always the same, of course, if we have the sets. It gets different, if the space varies. Normally, if you have the right stage with the normal space for the set, then the room stays the same, but if we do it with the plexiglass, then it's much more flexible: since there are also chairs outside the plexiglass, there are many more chairs than normally.

Café Müller played about 300 times, one of the most played, also because it's a very early piece. Around 100 performances, there was the film. The filming of Café Müller by WDR in 1987 became, for many dance students throughout the years worldwide, something very important. It was an entry point to the esthetic of Pina Bausch. But I actually wanted to get your impressions on this long period of playing Café Müller for you, and revisiting the piece, always being there. Was there a change for you of how you matured as a dancer, and as a person?

I think we sort of went through this somehow, maybe indirectly. Anyway, if you want it or not, there is an evolution, there is a change. Because you're not the same person at 28 years old than when you do it older than 40 or 50 years, you know. So, there are so many pieces of life in between, which makes you respond, react to the choreography, to the theme, and to the situation differently than when you did at the beginning. I realized this much more when I looked at video to reconstruct, or to teach it to somebody. You you check some tapes, some videos from different times, and then you realize some of the differences. They didn't really come on purpose. There are some differences of timing. Also with time, I wouldn't say fixed, we became aware of some time limits. And this is something which came out each time, or in some few of the revivals we did with Pina. I have to think of Bandoneon, and a few other pieces. But in Café Müller Pina, being in the piece and having her eyes closed, really depended on the sounds. There is something, which we didn't fix, or didn't voluntary take care of in the beginning: there are moments without music in Café Müller – there's a piece of music and then there's a moment without music – and there is the time you take to go from one action to the other. By not being careful, I remember having another timing, taking more time, and Pina would react and say that that's much too long. Because as you are doing it, you don't realize it. And she was right most of the time, because she had her eyes closed, she depended on time at another level, and if one thing takes too much time, then suddenly, not the tension, but something gets lost. This is something you have to take care of. This is something you feel differently when you get to a certain age, you respond differently, you feel and you realize this a little bit differently.

I remember this was also, for many of us very strong for Bandoneon. Because Bandoneon it's a piece, where we needed time, is very slow, and when we revived it, suddenly she wanted us to write down. We had cues without having cues. At the revival she asked us to write down. She wanted to know what we did and when. At one point she couldn't understand this anymore. She would ask, but when do it I do? I'd say: "More or less there". Then the more she was going into it, the more she needed, or wanted to structure a little bit more, to reduce the time taken [for actions]. She felt that there was no reason: "Why are you taking so much time for that?" With the the years you react differently to this sort of thing. Something which was a necessity at one point, with the time, you feel and judge differently.

So Pina Bausch was watching all of the pieces always and adjusting everything, but in "Café Müller" she couldn't watch. Up to a performance when she could not perform for health reasons, in 2005 in London, Héléna Pikon did her part. Robert Sturm was by her side, and he relates that at that point, when she saw the piece, she wanted to review the lights. The lighting was the same as what was being done all the time. It hasn't changed anymore.

More or less, it always has been corrected a bit.

And at that time did she radically re-lit the piece?

I think she worked much more on the light. Yes. I didn't take part of this process so much, so I couldn't say more about it. What did Robert say about it?

Oh, he said that because she was actually to see it, and the lighting concept was basically the same, still she had to review it, saying that at this point, looking at the piece, she wanted this brighter or this other darker or other changes. This reinforces your argument that as time goes by you start to adjust things: timings, and some aspects have to be reviewed to keep the pace correct. So, there is something of an overarching logic, or feeling within the piece, that has to be re-connected.

Oh yeah. But it's, it's funny because it makes me think about another possibility she had to watch the piece. It's when we were, one year in Japan, and they had an agreement with the television channel. We did film Café Müller. Every night she was looking at the rushes [raw footage]. I remember, one day she came to me and said: "I don't know. I saw the rushes and when you come in, somehow you carry already so much. I mean, you're sort of like... – I don't remember exactly the words – sort of already so sad." And she was right! She was right, because I remember, at the beginning I always tried to appear without coming in, somehow, to not be suddenly coming with an experience. But just in a way, that at one point, the audience saw – oh, there's somebody there. You know, trying to be invisible, but coming in somehow. And within the years, with all the different experiences and with what you carry, experiment, also the different casts, I made maybe something too much out of this entrance. I've been carrying in too much things coming in. It was incredible, because she told me that, so I readjusted. I tried to get rid of all what I had, to be as free as possible coming in. It's incredible, then when I finished the piece, I was almost not tired. I had much more energy. It gave me another input, it put me in another state of being. I did realize it on that day, and from that day on, I had another energy doing the piece. It's very interesting. Isn't it?

I remember something similar, or not completely similar because it came at another time. I remember when we did Iphigenie again, it was the same thing. At one point, after we had put it back together, I looked at the older video again, and I realized how much freer I was. Just like [simply] going, I had another energy and I tried to find this back. It gave me much more energy. I went back to a more virgin physicality – if you can put it that way.

Yeah. As you talk about that, I have this image: there is a path to be performed there. The piece exists and then you give form to it. You give a manifestation of it, but the piece is there, it is something that exists. And if you don't come in and flow through this path, you're actually fighting it, and that takes your energy away.

Yeah, sure. (...) That's probably what it is, actually. On one side it's beautiful to gain this experience and to grow into a role, into a path, into a piece, but at the same time that is something which doesn't have to be lost, therefore. It's the balance of all of those things which are extremely delicate and sensitive. And if you don't pay attention, you can fall into something that suddenly goes askew. It's something which I also try to be aware of and take care of when I teach my roles. Most of the dancers who are in that situation are younger than me, of course, but also younger than I was when I danced them for the last time – even sometimes for the first time. This is something I try not to forget: what was the energy I was in? in which sort of quality or mood was I when we first did those pieces? what became out of them, when I got a little bit more mature, older? to not just take one example, but to refer also to that fresh, or new, virgin situation.

Virgin is a good word to use, to reclaim that moment of your own creation, but that is also a skill that you develop. And that was going to be my next question: now, when you are teaching these roles, what kind of reflection does that need from you? And you just said that it was to reclaim that moment of creation.

Yeah, one of the preoccupations, or one factor which has to be included in the work is to not forget the quality that was there at the very beginning of it? Right.