In The Igor Moiseyev Dance Company: Dancing Diplomats, Anthony Shay explores Igor Moiseyev's legacy and influence on world events. In the 1930s, Moiseyev founded the State Academic Ensemble of Folk Dances of the Peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, commonly referred to in the west as The Igor Moiseyev Dance Company. Shay's study of Moiseyev adds to the expanding research on the Cultural Cold War as well as the political role of dance within the Soviet Union. Specifically, Shay argues that Moiseyev created a new dance genre, “ethno-identity dance” (4), which is a staged folk dance that serves as a representation of an ethnic group.
Shay begins his book with a discussion of the types and meanings of various spectacles. He notes that the dance company was a spectacle in the sense of being a “‘megagenre’” (26) with opulent costumes, music, and lights, as well as a large cast of dancers who performed highly precise movements. This type of staging often conveyed a political message via the choreography. In subsequent chapters, Shay notes the political messages that the dance company imparted to both Soviet citizens and international audiences.
In the following section on Russian nationalism, Shay observes that in the 1930s, when the Moiseyev Dance Company was founded, Soviet leader Iosif Stalin aimed at increasing Russian patriotism amid the growing Nazi threat. A key component of Russian nationalism was a “nostalgia for the village” (69). This nostalgia had first developed in the tsarist era and continued into the Soviet period. Shay relates that Moiseyev translated this nostalgia into choreographies that exude an idealized peasant life. These portrayals of content peasants and optimistic scenes supported the Soviet contention that the masses played a role in the Soviet Union's development and thus the growth of communism. Shay further notes that these large ensembles reflected the Soviet preference for grandiose artistic displays, which, for the Soviets, evidenced modernity and success.
Regarding the Cultural Cold War, Shay states that the dance company proved so successful during its initial tour of the US in 1958 that the State Department and the CIA attempted to counter with a “choreographic ‘answer’” (83). Shay contends that the US response most readily appeared in the form of the American National Theater and Academy (ANTA), which selected various dance, musical, and theatrical performances for foreign tours.
In the last three chapters, Shay examines Moiseyev's efforts to create his dance company. Contrary to the official narrative and Moiseyev's repeated statements that “chance” (123) was instrumental to his dance company's success, Shay demonstrates successfully that Moiseyev actively utilized opportunities to showcase his talents. Furthermore, Shay notes that Moiseyev used Stalin's support and patronage to increase the dance company's prestige, and that Moiseyev's own determination proved key to the dance company's continuance. For example, during the war years Moiseyev worked diligently to maintain the dance company, and in 1943 even founded a specific dance school that began and continues to train future members of the dance company. Following the war, the dance company undertook numerous international tours according to Shay, including the 1958 tour of the US, where the dance company's ethno-identity dances aimed to showcase the Soviet Union's multiculturalism as opposed to the United States’ racism. Shay concludes that the Moiseyev Dance Company served as a source of inspiration for various dance companies across the globe and ends with an excellent discussion of several of Moiseyev's most famous works, including Gopak and Leto.
Shay has presented an interesting account of the Moiseyev Dance Company. His recounting of his own experiences dancing with this company provide first-hand accounts of Moiseyev's influence on dance. Moiseyev's continued importance is revealed further through Shay's interviews with the dance company's current director, Elena Shcherbakova, who discusses the company's contemporary status within Russia. Moreover, Shay observed that the dance company's decision to retain its non-Russian ethnic dances demonstrates that in post-Soviet Russia, dance continues to have political messages.
This book could perhaps have been strengthened by a more chronological narrative, rather than a thematic approach, and by the use of additional archival materials, including more critics’ reviews of the 1958 US tour. Nevertheless, Shay's work is an important contribution to dance and political history and appeals to students and scholars interested in dance and Soviet and post-Soviet politics.
