Friday Review
Bangalore
Chennai and Tamil Nadu
Delhi
Hyderabad
Thiruvananthapuram
Creative flourishes
GOOD PERFORMANCE The dance was marked by graceful vinyasas and tastefully assumed mandalas
Sri Lalithakala Academy Foundation organised Natyanjali, 2007, in memory of Padmavibhushana Rukminidevi Arundale. On the second day, Madhavapeddi Murthy presented an interesting and glittering dance feature.
The theme incorporated an effort to highlight various prominent dance forms such as Bharathanatya, Odissi and Mohiniattam, and the main stress was on the Kuchipudi style. Apart from certain areas, it was evident that the choreographer had committed himself to fulfil all the requirements for choreographing an attractive substance - planning, imagination, method and their artistic implementation to materialise his vision.
Appropriate laya in Ganesha Kauthava provided a stable cadence to support meaningfully and aesthetically framed sequences. Perfect synchronisation played a vital role in imparting charm to the pure dance sections. Be it in turns or in individual capacities, accuracy in footwork exhibited by the artistes was one of the criteria adding weight to the above findings.
Another interesting feature was an ineffable bhava evolving itself throughout the nritha sections. This was possible by gracefully described vinyasas, delicately executed charis and tastefully assumed mandalas. Similarly, in Jayadeva’s Ashtapadi (“Sancharadadhara Sudha Madhura” - Ragamalika), Murthy’s abhinaya convincingly revealed vibhavas and anubhaavas ultimately establishing the sthayi bhaava under consideration.
Coming to a few shortcomings: Thandava in Thandava Geetham fell short of vigour and grace. “Jagadanandakaraka” (Pancharatna Krithi-Naata-Thyagaraja) was flooded with jathis: the overall pace, unduly fast for a dance performance, did not favour an absorbing delineation of the contents. As a result, the jathis too appeared hurried up.
Except for the ahaarya, there was not much to boast about the characters representing Odissi and Mohiniattam – either in style or in significance. Further, there appeared no consensus, either in concept or in significance, between the tillana sections and the lyrics of Bhajagovindam: their objectives and constructions being very much apart, they could not complement each other.
Vishwadeep and Ankita Rao presented Bharathanatya under the joint patronage of Nupura Kalavidaru and Ganabharathi at Veene Sheshanna Bhavana. Guru Ramamurthy Rao (nattuvanga), Indrani Anantharam (vocal), Narayana (violin), and Hanumantharaju (mridanga, khanjira) accompanied the young artistes.
Both the young dancers exhibited commendable commitment irrespective of the intricacies different stages in the development of the concert naturally embodied. One could observe harmony in all their movements and actions.
In Lakshmipathi Bhagavathar’s Ganesha Sthuti (“Sharanaguve Lambodara” - Naata) and Jatiswara (Saveri), the artistes performed together, with appreciable co-ordination.
In Kauthava (Revati-Tanjavur Shankara Iyer) Vishvadeep’s thandava with fully-drawn stances and acutely described postures drew the attention of its spectators. Abhinaya was the main substance of Shrikrishna Shabda, which was amply justified by Ankitha’s expressions.
In spite of the above merits there appeared a few deficiencies too – the vinyasas needed to be complete with adequate attention given to the guidelines pertaining to hastakshetra. A good choreography could have been bettered by more imagination and ideas.
The concert included Pushpanjali, Alaripu (having a theme based on a few stanzas from Shankaracharya’s Soundarya Lahari), Varna (“Manadannege Aruhu” - Dwaraki Krishnaswamy) and so on.
V. NAGARAJ
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Friday Review
Bangalore
Chennai and Tamil Nadu
Delhi
Hyderabad
Thiruvananthapuram
|
