In my opinion the most remarkable of this year’s Dancin’ Oxford festival events, out of those I saw, was Decreasing Infinity, an evening of classical Indian dance and contemporary work at the Pegasus Theatre. First came two pieces for a solo male dancer in the Bharatanatyam dance form of the Tamil Nadu region in South India. It is very energetic and virile, with a lot of stamping, turning, and flexing of the hands. The stamps especially show great power, as if the force of the movement goes right into the ground below the dancer. Legs are held bent at the knee for long periods. The strength held in the thighs seems quite superhuman. In the jumps the dancer’s torso remains at the same height, moving only horizontally. He seems held up by the energy he has taken from the ground, while the legs move from stamp to stamp independently.
The Odissi style that we saw in the following dances was more lyrical, shown us by a female dancer. The work of the lower body was still strong and heavy, but the hands, the crooked arms like those of a shadow puppet, moved delicately. The dances seemed a maze of precisely executed symbolic gestures, all part of a mysterious narrative we sometimes thought became clear to us, but which at other times we were just happy to marvel at. All the classical pieces were accompanied by recorded music also in classical Indian styles.
Decreasing Infinity, performed in the second half, mixes Kathak influence with that of contemporary dance, making a new form out of the two. Two male performers go through what seems a confrontation, sometimes a simple display of masculine power. It is a good work, but I don’t believe as successful as those just before it. The music is live beat boxing. Bigg Taj, the musician, accompanies each gesture with a whooshing or a thumping sound that suits it. The intention seems to be to magnify each movement, the movement of limbs so strong it produces sound of itself, and this is well done early on, but the effect does wear off after a while. It is not as impressive as the leg work in the Bharatanatyam, the solidity of which magnifies each movement of its own accord, leaving the music free to do its own thing, and sometimes go into counterpoint with the dance. That said there are moments not easily forgotten. The stamps in this piece, with the dancer standing upright, make the whole body shake. The two men face off against each other in overlapping pools of light, or they repeat the rhythm of the dance to each other as vocalised sounds.
A few days previously the theatre had hosted Moving with the Times, a showcase of dance from local artists. The most successful was Triple-Entendre, danced by Ségolène Tarte and Laura Addison. Both are very technically accomplished, particularly evident in the first, balletic part. Their movements follow jagged lines, mimicked by crosses in strips of light on the floor, and bands of light projected onto the back wall. The whole design is elegant and minimalist.
It’ll turn up was a work of dance-theatre from company Ellyfish & Things. It took the theme “happiness” and went from there. Cue excerpts from an Alan Watts Lecture, placards with “there is no path to happiness, it is the path” and the like, and some “happy” dancing. I wasn’t sure what to make of it. Perhaps it was really a children’s piece? But I don’t think many children find Alan Watts appealing. Perhaps it was all meant ironically? We’re given no reason to think so. The trouble is you can’t take something as vague as “happiness” and make good art out of it. If you try, everything you create will be trite and simplistic. When Pina Bausch made Café Müller, I do not believe she began by saying to herself “I know what’ll be a good idea, something about pain and human relationships.” If she had, Café Müller would have been awful. You can start with very specific stories or memories, things with some ambiguity in them, or purely formal ideas, coming, say, from an accompanying piece of music, but obvious, simplistic themes lead to obvious, simplistic images.
Stone’s Throw and Inertia suffered from the same problems. The first, from AnaMorphic Dance Theatre was a show about our paths through life. We leave behind us, as we are told by one of the performers, “a trail of stones”. This image dominates the work. Dancers come on stage dropping stones behind them and repeating stories from their childhood. One lays out a circle of them. Again, it was all too blunt and rather trite, being made worse in respect of the latter quality by film projections of children at play. Inertia, more simply, had taken the wrong things as its inspiration. It began with speech about the scientific theory of inertia. It may well be possible to use a scientific idea as the basis of a dance performance, but if you do I think the idea should be absorbed by the dancers and expressed entirely in the dance. Otherwise you get a disjunction between the thought behind the dance and the dance itself. This then led us to “inertia” as it’s perhaps more usually understood – a simple inability or indisposition to move. Somehow going from an exposition of the law of inertia to the difficulty of getting out of bed in the morning jarred.
At the festival’s end the Jasmin Vardimon Company visited the Playhouse with their show Freedom. It is an exploration of the idea of freedom in a series of brief, not directly connected scenes, which unfold in a dreamlike, tropical landscape. This atmosphere is to a great extent the product of the set – two huge constructions of hanging white industrial tubes, having a weird, postmodern beauty to them, lit as if through the branches of a rainforest. The work of the dancers themselves was mixed. There was something satisfying in the way a fairly simple movement sequence, in which the dances charged onto the stage, placed a hand on the floor and span round it, was used to imply quite different bits of narrative. When first used it represented simple exuberance, a few scenes later it was executed by the company as they ducked from a bird-shaped shadow that flew just above them, then the dancers employed it in chasing one of their number, a woman, as if they were hounds. Beyond this however, there wasn’t much that was formally interesting, and in the less dance-like sequences the ideas became kitsch. A recreation of John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s bed protest was quite funny but too bluntly a manifestation of the theme of the piece. A long narration about a mermaid that is captured by an evil rabbit, accompanied by fairly inexpert shadow puppetry, made me cringe. There were good bits, notably a swan out of the Tchaikovsky ballet getting her arms trapped in two of the tubes that constitute the set, but they were outnumbered by images too crudely related to the title theme.
At its first performances in the November of last year Freedom was criticised by the dance critics of many national papers as very obviously sub-Pina Bausch. Perhaps everything that is obviously derivative of something else is really never more than a misunderstanding of the thing it seems inspired by. That at any rate was what I’d say was wrong with Freedom. Take the two choreographers’ use of speech. The dancers’ speech here was simple and childish rather than absurdist – one girl comes on stage at regular interval to infuriate us with “I want to tell you a story”. Similar can be said of the dancing. Vardimon’s work didn’t have Pina Bausch’s emotional force in it. Throughout there was never any of the latter’s strange, cruel beauty and minute observation of ordinary life. You got the sense Vardimon had just started with the abstract idea of freedom, possibly because of strong political feelings, and tried to go straight from idea into the dance-theatre without properly examining the elements out of which she was to create her artwork. That is, human emotion as it appears in real life instances, and how that emotion can be expressed on stage in movement and words.
Perhaps I’ve dealt too harshly with the local work in Moving with the Times, treating them in the same way I would have that of more prestigious artists, but I don’t believe I have. We saw with Freedom that the problems with most of those pieces, ie. unhelpful points of inspiration and triteness and simplicity of images, are problems that can be found in the work of even a well respected company that performs all over Europe, and are therefore problems that need to be discussed. We saw with Triple-Entendre that provincial dance can be very good. At the risk of seeming to force a message out of the fairly random selection of Dancin’ Oxford pieces I saw, I’d say the Oxford scene could learn a lot from the Balbir Singh Dance Company, the group behind Decreasing Infinity. All were technically extremely capable, and if their contemporary piece was not up to the standard of their Classical dance, it was still very good and still certainly on the right track. The dance was about dance, not about happiness or inertia, and I think all good dance, even when it is also about something else, even when it tells a story or illustrates the structures of a piece of music, even when it is combined with spoken text, necessarily has dance, in a sense, as its subject.
Thomas Stell
18th March 2013
March 23, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Composer Malcolm Atkins has sent this response to Thomas’ review:
I can’t comment on all the work that Tom reviewed but feel the need to respond regarding some of the work I saw and some I know.
It was interesting that Decreasing Infinity was seen as the strongest work. Having seen Anuradha Chaturvedi’s work I felt that the traditional work displayed here was lacking compared to the real excitement that Drishti Dance can give to traditional interpretation using both amateurs and professionals. It had the technical facility of expression but lacked an emotive engagement that I have seen in Anuradha’s work. For me part of the difficulty is using backing music and the work being more than an exercise in skill and learning. Live music tends to transform and engage immediately and I did not feel these dancers compensated for that in these works. It was an impressive display but no more. The piece with live music did transcend for me and it enabled a degree of dynamic communication with the audience. My first reaction on seeing the beat box was dread that this would be an artificially created work to give street cred. It wasnt. The combination worked although the tabla should have been louder in the mix.
But this combination worked because it had something to say now and was not just an exercise. This brings me to the Moving with the Times show and some of the works discussed. I will talk about the works Inertia by Ana Barbour and Triple-Entendre by Ségolène Tarte because they are pieces I know well as I created music for both.
The emphasis on technical facility in contemporary dance is something I personally find as appealing as hearing someone demonstrate their ability to play fast scales in music or recite the contents of a dictionary in poetry. Virtuosity can tire very quickly if there is no more than the syntax of the art form and no underlying meaning.
Ségolène’s work did show technical facility but it was harnessed to give meaning and in that sense it was in the same world to me as Ana’s. There was a more obvious use of movement to create specific meaning but this was there in its own way in Inertia. The difference was that Ana’s work was more integrated into a multi media expression than Ségolène’s and hence movement and expression had to be more limited to work in conjunction with expressed word and delivered image. To criticise a work of this sort for using more constrained movement is like criticising film acting for being less dramatically expressive than stage acting.
Both works were at their most effective when technique was used without obvious artifice to create meaning and to me this ability to create a poetic act in which gestures embody poignancy and an emotive depth that resonates beyond the syntactical expression they employ is the most essential aspect of dance expression.
In the solos in Ségolène’s work in particular, technique was totally subordinated to the expression of meaning and effectively captured a real sense of existential frailty. In Ana’s work the beautiful integration of Naomi Morris’ camera and drawing with the dance created the same effect using totally different means.
Both works also attempted to explore an impressive emotive range and variety that encompassed different perspectives on the subject chosen. The exploration of angst over a 15 or 20 minute work is always easy, too easy given the dysfunctional world we live in. In Inertia there was continual humour and the contrasting voices of objectivity and optimism that shifted our gaze from personal dilemma and introspection. This was deliberately non-narrative and consisted of continual interpolation of different perspectives. In Triple-Entendre there was a more traditional teleological development partly encompassed in music and lighting as well – which relieved the stark desperation of the opening. But there was a constant shifting of perspective and a continual reference within movement vocabulary to different forms and to specific disjointed or recurring narratives. In both works there were layers of meaning that could be discovered on further watching in movement, sound and vision.
Ideally both works should have been longer as Triple-Entendre should have explored more space and silence and minimal movement (although this was not a problem within the varied programme of its performance and was mainly a compositional problem for which I was responsible) . Inertia if anything had too many interesting ideas and could have explored some of these much further.
However I would see this approach of taking a subject and exploring its potential from different perspectives as a real strength in each and one in which both works succeeded. As Tom points out there is a disjunction between scientific presentation and consideration of subjective emotive experience in Inertia but that is the whole point, and I would see a similar disjunction in Ségolène’s work although expressed through different dance techniques and musical references. Its resonance with all contemporary popular forms of expression (film, novel whatever) and our situation in a world bombarded by sound and image is what makes this work relevant compared to the traditional Indian forms that Tom admired so much. Unless they can draw us into a different world and suspend disbelief then they do not have the same validity as a profound expression in our time reflecting our multiculture.
Both Intertia and Triple-Entendre deserve proper support to be developed to their full potential but in a society as dedicatedly philistine as Camerons Britain I see that as very unlikely.
Malcolm Atkins
April 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm
I don’t want to repeat myself as I have already presented my thoughts in the review, but reading this discussion I’d like to add some as well. I don’t think that a “dance” piece has to be purely dance to be enjoyed and meaningful. Tom seems to be a very knowledgeable and passionate writer and observer when it comes to dance history, comparing genres, pieces and artists. but has he himself been through the pains and joys of creating a dance piece? That would maybe at least soften some perspectives. Yes, technical brilliance is to be admired and I welcome that, but it can also become too impersonal and the soul doesn’t shine through. Yes, in “Moving with the times” there were different levels of technical ability to be seen. They are artists who work on ways how to express their very personal feelings, with artistic language (not only dance), transformed in a context of personal and objective world perception. They invite us to take part and draw our own conclusions in this constant tension that reality confronts us with. What is reality? Here I agree with Malcolm. The disjunction between scientific/ objective and personal emotional approach is rather welcome as it is part of reality and both is relevant for the world we live in(I am not even talking about a spiritual approach). Artists may not have the answer for the questions that burn in our hearts but they can make the heartbeat felt and heard with a unique voice, That is precious and to be nurtured. Even if not perfect. And what is wrong with making us smile once in a while? Quite simply…
(By the way as far as I know, Pina Bausch dealt with exactly that simple thing of tensions in human relationships, that was her very personal theme, but obviously many people could relate to that and she found a language that was understood. Personally, her approach wouldn’t be mine, I would express something more hopeful, but her artistic work is definitely to be respected, she was a pioneer in her time, and the current revival shows the relevance of it as well).
Anyway
Lizzy Spight
November 24, 2017 at 2:42 pm
[…] Thomas Stell reviews Moving With the Times including Ana Barbour’s Inertia March 2013 (with ad… […]