Serge Lifar and the Question of Collaboration with the German Authorities under the Occupation of Paris (1940–1949)

Abstract

This article examines the political and artistic activities of dancer and choreographer Serge Lifar at the Paris Opéra during and immediately after the occupation of Paris. Although Lifar was cleared of charges of collaborationism with the German authorities after the war, the question of collaborationism has arisen again in light of the rehabilitation of his aesthetic by the Paris Opéra and other dance companies. Using archival materials usually ignored by dance scholars, this article examines Lifar's political activities, his political convictions, and his political ambitions. His theory of ballet as set forth in La Danse: les grands courants de la danse académique (1938) and two of his successful ballets of this period – Joan de Zarissa (1942) and Suite en blanc (1943) – are discussed in light of his politics.

French Interwar Dance Theory

“…This is problematic because it assumes that the Occupation had no lasting effect on French dance and that the Opéra Ballet, once having achieved its hegemonic nationalist goals by the end of the thirties, continued blithely on its hegemonic way in the postwar era. This is not the place to expound upon why I believe this is a historically flawed concept, but suffice it to say in this connection that the idea itself is made possible only by a particular reading of the career of Serge Lifar (Franko 2016a(Franko , 2016b. The fact that Lifar led the ballet throughout the Occupation and survived the war to continue in this capacity until his retirement in 1958 presents a misleading image of continuity.…”

“…This is not the place to expound upon why I believe this is a historically flawed concept, but suffice it to say in this connection that the idea itself is made possible only by a particular reading of the career of Serge Lifar (Franko 2016a, 2016b). The fact that Lifar led the ballet throughout the Occupation and survived the war to continue in this capacity until his retirement in 1958 presents a misleading image of continuity.…”