Dance
Tharp (Barbican)
Energy deficit
Giannandrea Poesio
The second and final programme pre- sented by the Twyla Tharp Dance Compa- ny has concluded, rather disappointingly, one of the sloppiest summer dance seasons I have seen in London. Not unlike the two recent works presented in the first pro- gramme — Roy's Joys (1997) and Yemaya (1998), reviewed last week — the three 1996 creations, Heroes, Sweet Fields and 66 demonstrated, in my opinion, that Tharp's current productions lack the vibrant and varied creativity of her earlier works.
There is nothing wrong in hanging on to successful formulas and solutions; after all to stick to a set of well-defined principles is what makes the style of a particular chore- ographer recognisable. Distinctive formulas and stylistic canons, however, need con- stant updating to look timeless and to suit the ever-changing cultural trends and taste, something that Tharp seems to have over- looked within the last few years.
None of the works mentioned above betrays or reveals any serious attempt at revising and revisiting both the construc- tion of the dances and the movement vocabulary. Apart from the diverse themes that underscore each work, they all indulge in a tiresome reiteration of identical struc- tural principles that have had their day. In addition, the immediate readability that once characterised most of Tharp's oeuvre seems to have been totally superseded by an intricate game of conceptual imagery as well as by a mind-boggling and often super- fluous mixture of dance techniques that Impinge heavily on a direct appreciation of the choreography. These flaws are particularly evident in Heroes, a piece which seems to go on forev- er, bringing on stage all sorts of political, social, racial and gender issues, where the often overwhelming presence of balletic components makes little or no sense. It is true that Tharp has created several works based on the ballet idiom — from Push Comes to Shove to Mr Worldly Wise, to be seen again as part of the next Royal Ballet season — but, somehow, direct ballet refer- ences such as the ones spotted in Heroes clash vividly with the rest of the dance, looking out of place as if they had been introduced by someone who has little knowledge of that particular technique.
Similarly, the pseudo-comic 66 relies on predictable images and on a malfunction- ing structural division in solos, duets and group dances that, in the end, does not lead anywhere. While watching it I could not help asking myself what had happened to the well-balanced composition and refined humour of Nine Sinatra Songs, where the portrayal of each character was far more complete and less irritatingly superficial and stereotyped.
Only in Sweet Fields was I able to find traces of what I once used to admire: Tharp's powerful choreographic freshness and fluidity, thanks to an amalgam of non- theatre dance movements — inspired here by ritual gestures such as those practised by the Shakers — with those stemming from recognisable dance idioms. Still, the pleas- antly mystical tint of the dance does not last as long as it should and the work soon loses both its flow and its drive. Such lack of theatrical energy, which, in my opinion, was the evening's unfortunate common fac- tor, should not, however, be blamed entire- ly on the choreography.
All the members of the company are excellent dancers with solid and varied tech- nical backgrounds, but they shine more for the technical rendition of each dance than for a reading of the various choreographic situations, a theatrically vital component. Being mostly non-narrative, Tharp's works do not require any conventional theatrical interpretation — that is the construction of a fictional character based on the analysis of the given role. Yet there is little doubt that her dances rely greatly on a full 'inner' participation of the performers based, in turn, on a full understanding of the chore- ographer's intentions and on an equally deep perception of the various possibilities offered by movement.
Only when such perception informs the `We want to stay in Paris as long as it's friendly, but one rude waiter, and we're out of there!' technicalities of the choreography does Tharp's work acquire that electrifying aura of pure theatre which has often been praised and associated with her creations. Alas, her current dancers seem to be inter- ested more in showing us their skills than their acting abilities, from which works such as 66 would have greatly benefited.
Previous page
