sarma

Swinging into the Megaron Mousikis, Haris Mandafounis’ Contemporary Dance Group, presented Swings, the choreographer’s new work. This performance was one of the four scheduled for this year’s tribute to the art of dance.

With Swings, it seems that the choreographer makes a turn towards his earlier stylistic choices of non-narrative dance following its impetus while trying to create a metaphor that would convey to the audience feelings connected with swings in sentiments, moods and relationships. After his much discussed and (rather) unsuccessful treatments of works by Shakespeare, namely Romeo and Juliet and The Taming of the Shrew, he turns for inspiration to the basic elements of movement. This has direct implications for the viewer: he no longer follows the linear development of the story-line, but rather experiences various emotional changes imposed by the atmosphere of the choreography, the relationships of the bodies in space, and the variations of speed in the execution of the movements.

Mandafounis also tried to “update” his style by using modes of partnering directly coming from a genre formulated in the late sixties by American Steve Paxton, known as “contact improvisation”. This particular kind of close bodily contact, however, is neither a straightforward, ready-to-use recipe, nor should it be treated in the same way as other dance techniques as those of Graham or Limón. It is the product of specific cultural and artistic procedures, and aims at creating a very particular way of “dealing” with the body. Contact improvisation, applied by (accomplished) dancers, is not intended to exhibit the virtuosic qualities of the dancing body. It is closely connected with the complex process of improvisation and pays “ adifferent” respect to the laws of gravity than modern dance techniques. It is usually employed in an attempt to fight resistance but also treat the dancing body not as a competitive virtuosic instrument, but as taking part in a natural process of “giving and taking”. If this is done in the right way, then partnering is “easy and safe”. For some, partnering requires more than technique; it is an attitude, influenced by the “democratization” which penetrated all aspects of cultural and artistic life in the ‘60s.

Besides several interesting moments, Swings was, overall, disappointing. A mature artist who suddenly tries to become “trendy” by using codes to which he has not been exposed and which are not familiar to him is embarrassing for the performer and confusing for the viewer. Especially when the choreographer turns to his own motifs of traditional partnering, for example, whenever the “new” style proves to be too “unsafe” for him. This only goes to show that he would have been more successful had he decided to remain within more conventional modernist movement patterns, patterns that he knows and can control and manipulate rather skillfully.