Just a few thoughts on Miller Theater’s production of Oresteia: With all due respect for Luca Veggetti’s direction and choreography, does Iannis Xenakis’ highly contemporary and thrilling score call for dance in a balletic jazz idiom? In fact, why bring in dancers at all? Why not elaborate the most successful bits of choreography, those in which the chorus members were asked to move? The dancers, despite their feline prowess and technique, never took their eyes off the floor, and in listening to the complex brilliance of the music, one ultimately begins to tune the choreography out, much like one tunes out external noise when reading a compelling book.
In this production the chorus members were the most powerful actors and purveyors of affect, not the dancers, which doesn’t mean to suggest doing away with the choreography, but rather specifying whom exactly to choreograph. Given the music’s precedence and intrigue, I think the choruses alone would have sufficed.
Veggetti’s direction, on the other hand, was tasteful and careful not to overload the scene with too much stimulation, astutely setting visual artist Pascal Delcey’s slowly morphing imagery above the action. The small stage was remarkably minimalist and well managed, considering the fact that roughly 70 people shared the same space.
But the music reigns. Kudos to The International Contemporary Ensemble and to bass Wilbur Pauley, whose performances were impeccable, though it is hard to tell when a player botches a quarter tone passage… The keenest aspect of Xenakis’ score has to be the subtle instrumental commentary, for the plot of Aeschylus’ elaborate story is only hinted at in the singers’ dialogue. (This commentary was precisely what the choreography tried to usurp, and in doing so became distracting, not enlightening.) The star of the evening was undeniably David Schotzko on solo percussion, perched high above the action, not unlike Athena, who in the last scene lays down the final judgment and orders all to disperse, nixing Orestes’ punishment and ordering the Furies’ conversion to benevolence.
This last moment of shrill, exhilarating cacophony -the most aurally theatrical moment I’ve experienced- was well worth any flaw in the production. I never thought that in this city of incessant, deafening clamor, I’d be so thrilled to hear such a noisy event…
8 Comments
September 30, 2008 at 7:21 pm
hey, I didn’t know you had arrived in NYC! Are you just visiting, or here for good? (we exchanged comments way back when, when I was blogging for WNYC as the Culturist – I’m still blogging for the station, but folded into a larger arts blog) … Interesting to read your thoughts on ‘Oresteia.’ I thought that Veggetti’s language did work pretty well, though I agree that the most compelling parts integrated the singers (that moment when the female choristers confronted each other, and the dancers wended about them? Gorgeous) … I wonder how much you could ask from them in terms of movement, though, given how difficult Xenakis’ music is.
c
October 7, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Hello Claudia!
I was away for a little bit- sorry for the delay in response. It’s official: I’m back in NYC. Long story short: no working visa. I’ll be back though! Someday.
I agree that the female chorus confrontation was fantastic, and not necessarily because the choristers were dancing per se, but because Veggetti chose subtle movements for them. It’s amazing how powerful their simple gestures were (outstretched, demanding forearms when chanting), compared with a long, sinewy danced phrase, albeit technically impressive. In this sense, the chorus members wouldn’t be asked to “dance”, but rather to carry out specific movements. Choreography as “blocking”; making precise decisions about movement and its organization on stage. Though this isn’t to say that dance couldn’t be incorporated. The complexity and richness of the music, in my opinion, calls for minimal additions or distraction, which overall I think Veggetti achieved.
Any thoughts?
Bummer about your blog! I’ll still check in with the main one though.
Peter
October 9, 2008 at 2:57 am
That’s true, choreography and dance are not interchangeable, certainly. And now that you mention it, what satisfied the most about that moment was the juxtaposition of the simple, strongly executed movements of the choristers with the longer, richer dance phrases.
I am trying to think back now to all of the choreographed operas I’ve seen, and how many of them do this well. Alas, it’s 10:55 and my brain is balking.
If you ever want to get just my posts – or those of one of the other bloggers (Nathan Lee is definitely worth checking out) – you can just click on my name and all of my posts appear. Would love to get your thoughts on this one:
http://blogs.wnyc.org/culture/2008/10/07/who-says-dance-is-a-universal-language/
I take it you’re not so happy to be back in NYC? Or that it wasn’t your decision? Perhaps I can entice you to join the Performance Club that I’ll soon be starting. Stay tuned …
October 11, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Sign me up! Definitely let me know.
October 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm
this is a precursor. come say hi:
http://www.wnyc.org/events/113703
November 12, 2008 at 6:57 pm
i’m so happy i discovered your blog. i’ll be visiting to read further.
best, helena
November 19, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I’m glad, Helena! I have been slowly checking yours out too. Looks fantastic.
Peter
p.s. When you’re visiting, forgive me if I’m not exactly the most prolific writer…!
November 24, 2008 at 10:41 am
take your time ;-) i’ll keep on visiting.
h.