Youth and experience share space
TULSI BADRINATH
|
Smitha charmed, Sreekala worked hard to create a rapport and Meenakshi impressed with her confidence.
|
GRACEFUL: Smitha Madhav.(below) Meenakshi Chittaranjan and (bottom) Sreekala Bharath. PhotoS: R. Shivaji Rao
Smitha Madhav brought freshness and youthful charm to her Bharatanatyam performance. In the Simhendramadhyamam varnam, `Kannaa Kaarmegha Vannaa,' Smitha described Krishna's mischief in a lively way. With maturity, Smitha will perhaps bring more of herself to her abhinaya, linking expressions to create the flow of bhava. While her nrutta was graceful, she neglected the proper enunciation of the di-di-tai. This resulted in an odd-looking foot movement that skimmed the floor.
Guru Rajeswari Sainath guided the dancer ably on the nattuvangam. Murali Parthasarathy sang with involvement. Kesavan (mridangam), T. K. Vijayaraghavan (violin) and Patanjali (flute) provided fine support.
Smitha was followed by Sreekala Bharath, who also displayed the tendency to skim the di-di-tai portions. There may be differences in style, but surely that cannot be an excuse for indifferent footwork.
Sreekala began with a kauthvam in praise of Andal, and seemed tired at times. She moved on to a lovely swarajati `Maamoha Lahiri,' in Khamas, with Namasivaya Pulavar's lyrics set to music by Subburama Dikshitar.
Though Sreekala did her best, S. Srilata with the nattuvangam and Dhananjayan on the mridangam launched into a fast tempo with the dancer straining to keep pace.
In `Parulannamata,' the Kaapi javali by Dharmapuri Subburayer, Sreekala did not create a lasting impact. Some of the mudras were held in a `casual' way. In telling the story of Kannagi and Kovalan, Sreekala succeeded in bridging the gap between the rasikas and herself. Melodramatic at times, Sreekala was effective in bringing to life all the characters. The choreography and music enhanced each other. Chitrambari Krishnakumar's singing was pleasing to the ear as was Muruganandam's violin play. Clearly, the dancer had taken great trouble over her costume. Unfortunately, the border was not compatible with the deep-pink brocaded pleats or the dark green body. The principle of contrast did not apply well here.
Meenakshi Chittaranjan was confident in her approach to kalapramana, in the Jaganmohini piece in praise of `Sivakama Sundari.' However, a neat attami, depicting the drawing of blood from the severed head of the demon, was out of place.
Meenakshi presented a Vachaspati varnam originally composed by Pandanallur Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai, after adapting it to lyrics by Pandanallur Srinivasa Pillai.
It was wonderful to hear Pandanallur Pandian unfold the jatis at the right pace, delivering the sollukattus with emphasis and command. The clarity of style came through in the steady build-up of the nrutta segments, and in Meenakshi's measured exposition.
Her abhinaya though was marred by an involuntary quiver of the lower lip, which interfered with the expression of bhava. The often done Saveri piece, `Unnai Thoodhanupinen' — in which the nayika sends her friend as a messenger to her lover, only to find her returning with tell-tale signs of an amorous encounter with him — remained unexplored in all its dimensions.
In the javali `Nee Maataley Maayanura,' Meenakshi delineated with restraint the nayika indignant at her lover's unfulfilled promises. Sometimes, restraint can suggest great depths. On other occasions such as in this performance, it may suggest a surface approach to abhinaya. Gomati Nayagam's confident singing, Shaktivel's deft handling of the mridangam, Sikamani's support on the violin and A. N. Srinivasan's contribution on the flute created enjoyable music.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Music Season
