Devaluation of ‘The Nut’ : It’s a holiday tradition and a cash cow too. But have all those sugarplum fairies and waltzing flowers produced a ‘Nutcracker’ glut?

It’s no secret that “The Nutcracker” has long been the cash cow of the ballet repertory.

What the Christmas crunch is to retailers, the Tchaikovsky chestnut is to ballet companies. Since before there were Santas in shopping malls, troupes have been making nearly half of their annual nut (so to speak) off a couple of weeks’ worth of sugarplums.

But “The Nutcracker” is becoming a tough nut to crack.

Part of the problem is that there’s been a boom in “Nutcrackers,” with seemingly everyone and his elves getting into the act. Mainstream outfits both large and small, foreign and domestic, all do it. And even the more venturesome or contemporary companies--inspired perhaps by the success of choreographer-dancer Mark Morris’ “Hard Nut”--have been tossing their tutus into the ring.

“There’s a lot of talk about the proliferation,” says the Joffrey Ballet’s executive director, C. C. Conner. “Some companies say the take from ‘The Nut’ is not as good as it once was, though we’re still filling well.”

Los Angeles alone will see at least 10 stagings of the holiday warhorse this season, ranging from two Moscow-based bus-and-truck versions to the more modest offerings of such local outfits as the West Valley Ballet and the Westside Ballet. (And that’s not even counting last week’s one-night stand of “Nutcracker on Ice.”)

Arguably the most visible version opens this week, when the Joffrey Ballet brings “The Nutcracker” to the Music Center’s Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, Wednesday through Dec. 30. Meanwhile, notable continuing productions include stagings by Los Angeles Classical Ballet at Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center and Pasadena Dance Theatre at San Gabriel Civic Auditorium.

There are couch-potato “Nutcrackers” too. Last season alone there were at least seven TV versions for diligent cable cruisers, and there are likely to be as many or more this year. On video, there’s the just-out Balanchine and New York City Ballet tape and half a dozen others for the renting.

Yet ironically, even if--or perhaps because--”Nutcrackers” are multiplying like Tribbles, it doesn’t seem to be the fiscal quick fix for ballet companies it once was. Major companies such as the American Ballet Theatre have canceled engagements, citing slow ticket sales, and resident groups also have been scrambling for audiences. The situation surely reflects the financial woes afflicting nearly all dance companies today, as more and more groups struggle to stay afloat.

But there may be an artistic downside as well. More “Nutcrackers,” after all, is not necessarily better.

“Everybody is trying to do their version, but the value has been diminished,” says Pasadena Dance Theatre’s artistic director, Charles Maple. “There are a lot out there that really are not up to snuff.”

*

Once upon a time, in a faraway land filled with stolid toy soldiers and fluffy dancing snowflakes, “The Nutcracker” could be counted on to underwrite the annual seasons of little ballet companies everywhere. Once the initial costs of costume and sets were amortized, it would typically bring in 40% to 70% of a troupe’s annual earned income.

That held true for decades, especially for non-touring companies based outside major cities, where their “Nut” was likely to be the only game in town.

During the 1970s, an increase in performing arts touring facilitated by programs run by the National Endowment for the Arts and other government agencies changed the situation somewhat. Small- and mid-size cities--as well as big cities without resident companies--could afford to bring in snazzier productions.

In the mid-1980s, however, those subsidies were cut back. Fewer companies could afford to tour, and fewer presenters had the wherewithal to offer profitable gigs. And as the 1980s continued and the recession hit full swing, these conditions were exacerbated.

The biggest of the big ballets, such as the American Ballet Theatre and the Joffrey, have of course always remained somewhat outside this scenario--though even they are apparently no longer immune to the greater economic currents affecting the arts these days.

When Mikhail Baryshnikov left ABT in 1990--taking the rights to his production with him--the group was left without a “Nut” to call its own. And by 1991, ABT was in serious financial trouble.

It wasn’t until last year that, after changes in administration, the company had the resources to premiere a new “Nutcracker,” which it did in Orange County, later restaging the work in New York.

ABT officials say that things have gotten better. However, the “Nutcracker” that the troupe was to have performed from last Monday to next Saturday in Purchase, N.Y., was recently canceled because of poor ticket sales. Purchase is precisely the kind of middle-class, arts-oriented college town where dance--ABT dance, in particular--should be a comparatively easy sell.

But ABT says the slow sales really weren’t a reflection of the increasingly difficult “Nutcracker” marketplace.

“We announced it as an element of a multifaceted agreement between ABT and the arts center there,” says company spokesman Robert Pontarelli. “There was a hesitancy to announce ‘The Nutcracker’ until all of the details were worked out, so the marketing didn’t really begin until mid-October. It simply was not enough time.”

The action was also a defensive move, Pontarelli says: “ABT has made incredible strides in the past two years in fiscal health, and this could have put that in jeopardy.”

(In a similarly defensive move, ABT also nixed its planned January dates in San Diego, where the bill was to include Kenneth MacMillan’s full-evening “Manon” and repertory works.)

Although the Joffrey is going ahead with its “Nutcracker” visit, that company has also canceled dates recently. Earlier this month, it bailed on a planned April tour that would have included dates at the Orange County Performing Arts Center.

Like ABT, the Joffrey claims comparative, if not absolute, fiscal health. The company made a significant profit off last year’s touring engagements of the Prince-scored ballet “Billboards,” which has already been performed twice at the Music Center, once at OCPAC, and would have been on tap for OCPAC in April.

“Sales in the last year were good, and earned income was higher last year thanks to ‘Billboards,’ ” says the Joffrey’s Conner. In fact, in absolute dollars earned, it surpassed even “The Nutcracker,” although in profitability per week, “it doesn’t make that much difference,” he says.

Like ABT, the Joffrey Ballet’s “Nutcracker” is subject to the ups and downs of touring economics.

“We’re the anomaly in the ‘Nutcracker’ business,” Conner says. “It’s different because we do ‘The Nut’ on tour.”

The paradox is that not that much pain means not that much potential gain.

“Most companies are presenting at home, so they take all the risk and all the profit,” he says. “Since we’re touring, we get paid a guaranteed fee, so the box-office risk is not the same.”

Still, there’s no way for the Joffrey to make a touring “Nutcracker” the money font it once was for hometown troupes. “It sells well, but we have expenses that most other companies don’t have--per diem, trucking and freight bills,” he says.

Of course, if the conditions are right, the “Nut” still turns a buck.

“This year, it’s five weeks of work,” says Conner, whose company mounted its first “Nutcracker” in 1987. “We’re doing about as long a ‘Nutcracker’ season as one can do. It’s probably 40% of our earned income.”

Throughout the 1980s, L.A. played host both to large touring productions of “The Nutcracker” and smaller, local versions.

In 1983, David Wilcox’s Los Angeles Classical Ballet entered the field, proffering a traditionally styled interpretation. Surprisingly, though, the presence of imported competition hasn’t hurt this outfit’s take.

“In 1984, we were the only big ‘Nutcracker,’ ” Wilcox says. “Then ABT came into town in 1985 and our ticket sales went up. Then the Joffrey came in ’86 and our ticket sales went up again.”

That’s an encouraging sign, he says: “I don’t think there is a limited audience. The more you have, the more audience you create. Every time more ‘Nuts’ came to town, our ticket sales went up.”

What’s more, the audience expanded to the previously uninitiated.

“Every year about 50% of our audience was new,” Wilcox says. “This year, we have all these ‘Nutcrackers’ and our ticket sales are up like 20% over last year.”

Yet things aren’t all rosy for L.A. Classical. The company hadn’t performed at all this year until now. Nor has the money that has been made from “Nutcracker” performances been enough to finance other works the way it once did.

L.A. Classical Ballet may be a “Nutcracker”-only company this year, but that wasn’t always the case. The group used to perform during the year, then stopped. “The recession hit,” Wilcox says, “which is why we cut back.”

“ ‘The Nutcracker’ is the only ballet that cannot lose a lot of money,” he says. “It’s always going to be the bread and butter.”

In previous active years, the take from “The Nutcracker” represented about half of L.A. Classical’s annual income. This year, with contributions down, they’re looking for it to provide about 75%.

But Wilcox hopes that other new productions will help carry the earned income load in the future. “We’re looking at a big new production of ‘Cinderella’ in the fall--something that will surpass our ‘Nutcracker’ in bringing ballet to the wide audience it deserves.”

A former “Nutcracker”-only company that’s branching out--and counting on the ‘Nut’ to bankroll the expansion--is the Pasadena Dance Theatre, which has presented an annual “Nutcracker” for 14 years.

It was really the only production the group did--until this year, that is. “Before we became professional, it was 100% of our earned income,” says Pasadena Dance Theatre’s Maple. “This is the first year we’re adding in a full season, and ‘The Nutcracker’ is definitely a key element, probably about 70%-75% (of projected income). And we still need to raise about $100,000 more on top of that.”

But Maple thinks his group is poised to nab a hefty share of the market. “What makes our version special is that it is the original American version choreographed by Willam Christensen in 1944,” he says of the version, which is also in use by the San Francisco Ballet.

“Mr. Christensen has reviewed the choreography. Our associate director, Cynthia Young, used to dance with Christensen, and she sets it each year to make sure everything is just the way it was. It’s the authentic choreography.”

Not every L.A. production, however, is so enamored of tradition. The recent Los Angeles Chamber Ballet staging at Cal State L.A.’s Luckman Fine Arts Complex, for example, strayed from the tried and true into terrain of the group’s often-innovative aesthetic.

Troupe leaders knew they couldn’t go too far out into left field, though.

“We tried to be imaginative and yet stay in the arena of what was traditional,” L.A. Chamber Ballet co-founder Raiford Rogers says of the staging, which mixed extravagant Neo-Expressionist costumes with a fairly conventional narrative.

“It’s almost become this religious ceremony, and you have to be careful with it,” he says. “You can do a novelty ‘Nutcracker’ and people would look at it once, but they might not want to return.”

Of course, there are those who have wondered what a hip group like L.A. Chamber would be doing with “The Nutcracker” in the first place. But the reasons, alas, were financial.

“We’d been asked by our booking agents for years to do a ‘Nutcracker’ and we waited 13 years to do one,” Rogers says. “Actually, I expected to get a lot more grief about it from some of my friends or supporters of the ballet.”

Even though the take isn’t what it used to be, it’s still something to count on.

“Even though the booking possibilities have been down in recent years, the one that seems to be holding steady is ‘The Nutcracker,’ ” Rogers says.

“We felt there was a place for us because the major ballet companies’ ‘Nutcrackers’ are not affordable.”

And it helps keep the company alive in other ways too.

“We’re looking for an anchor to generate work for our dancers,” Rogers says. “It was something that we had to do, because if you don’t, your dancers will be contracted elsewhere.”

So with the new production up on its feet for the first time and the event recorded on videotape, all that’s left for L.A. Chamber is to secure the bookings. “This year our only objective was to create a ‘Nut,’ because people won’t book it unless they see it,” Rogers says.

He and colleagues hope it will pay off and keep the company afloat--because mounting a new “Nutcracker” is no cakewalk.

“It’s an enormous amount of work,” Rogers quips. “There’s a reason why they call it ‘The Nutcracker.’ “*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Vital Stats

“The Nutcracker”

Joffrey Ballet

Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, L.A. Music Center, 135 N. Grand Ave., downtown. Wednesday- Thursday and Dec. 26-30, 8 p.m.; Thursday-Friday, 2 p.m.; Friday, 7:30 p.m. (No performances Saturday and Christmas Day. $50-$15.

(213) 972-7211.

Los Angeles Classical Ballet

Terrace Theater, Long Beach Convention Center, 300 E. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach. Today, 7 p.m. And at Pasadena Civic Auditorium, 300 E. Green St., Pasadena, Thursday-Saturday,

8 p.m.; Saturday, 2 p.m. $10-$36. (213) 365-3500.

Pasadena Dance Theatre

San Gabriel Civic Auditorium, 320 S. Mission Drive, San Gabriel. Today, 2 p.m., and Wednesday, 2 and 7:30 p.m. $8-$30. (800) 474-2484.