An interview with Sylvie Guillem prior to the opening of Eonnagata at Sadlers Wells last week. Guillem gives some background information about the production and also speaks about her lack of created roles during her time with the Royal Ballet.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 775535.ece

No reviews of Eonnagata yet, but it is a very interesting work and provides a good role for Guillem who stills retains her amazing stage presence.

A pretty fair assessment in today's Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/cult ... Wells.html

Sounds typical of an ambitious production such as this. "Too many cooks" sounds like an astute observation.

Did you see it, Cassandra?

Eonnagata
Sadler’s Wells Theatre, London
Monday 2 March 2009

“Eonnagata” was conceived as a collaboration by three well known and respected artists, Sylvie Guillem, Robert Lepage and Russell Maliphant. Added to these three names were those of Michael Hulls as Lighting Designer and Alexander McQueen as Costume Designer.

The work attempted to give a glimpse into the life of Charles de Beaumont, a career diplomat, soldier and spy who lived in the 18th century and who transgressed his time by spending much of his career dressed as a woman. From this, it seemed obvious to the artists involved that “Eonnagata” should also try to look into the issues of gender and how this may define or constrict a person’s identity.

The result was a series of tableaux vivants in which the character, represented in each scene by Guillem, Maliphant and/or Lepage, presented different aspects of his/her personality and gender.

It is difficult to say that “Eonnagata” was not a good piece. It certainly had beautiful moments and it somehow got your attention for a long time. However, the end result did not succeed in either telling the story of this character or in exploring the gender issues it set itself to do.

A highly theatrical piece, “Eonnagata” took the visual imagery investigated and pursued by artists in the sixties and seventies - like Lindsay Kemp or Maurice Béjart - and, unfortunately, did not manage to add anything new to it. So, though there were visually many moments of great beauty and magic on stage, the artists at work seemed unable to take them either forward, thus making them relevant or new to today’s audiences, or to simply give them the depth that can make the audience engage on some kind of psychological level.

The piece seemed very much a work in progress in which none of the artists had really compromised much of their artistic vision in order to attain a final product that would present them on stage in a new light.

Guillem was absolutely beautiful, but her dancing was not too far away from what we already know she can achieve. In fact, her dancing was not too far away from the choreography Béjart did for her at the beginning of her career, so I was left wondering what new territory she had explored since those early days. True, her artistry and dramatic power have certainly matured since those days, but London audiences already knew that from her triumphant days dancing MacMillan’s heroines.

Russell Maliphant’s choreography did not really add anything new to a vocabulary that is starting to cry out for new ideas in the contemporary world. His use of martial arts and oriental aesthetics, though highly powerful, did not manage to make these relevant to his dance vocabulary because they failed to be fully integrated in it. Japanese theatre, drum dances… they are appealing and they are powerful in their own right but, after forty years of choreographers and theatre directors using them for these very reasons, one would expect to see them more fully integrated and “contemporary” in a way.

As for Lepage, his presence on stage was magnificent. He held your attention in each one of his movements. His theatrical ideas were beautifully developed, but, as his other colleagues, he also seemed unable to compromise his work and thus, failed in making it deep and relevant.

They say “too many cooks spoil the broth” and maybe this is the final thought on this piece. Maybe an outsider, a director, somebody with a strong vision should have been brought in, so that “Eonnagata” would have achieved to have some narrative cohesion or depth. As it was presented, it simply failed to do this and fell flat somewhere in the middle.

Thanks for the review, Ana. It sounds like they were trying too hard to be avant garde and succeeded instead in beingmyopic and tedious. It is a hard line to walk, I think.

I don't think the piece was tedious, it simply lacked depth, which is becoming a trend on the stages these days, unfortunately. I think it needed a strong voice/vision to lead the collaboration and not three artists too scared of stepping onto each other's toes.

I also think it was overambitious. At 1 hour and 40 minutes without and interval, it is difficult to sustain the audience's interest.

And I also think that they should have decided whether they were going to tell the story of the character or focus on the gender issues... but, yes, you are right in your appreciation that, perhaps they should really need to check their history books before putting on a show that could have been done in the sixties and presenting it as cutting edge.

I have to say I am finding it extremely difficult to leave the theatre on a high these days... it all seems very pretentious and yet, very deja vú... London is in need of new creative voices and none of the big companies seem to be too interested in finding them.

That's an astute observation about the depth of the piece and it's lack of a clear purpose. Those are really key needs when attacking an anbitions piece like this.

I also agree with your view that it is hard to leave the theater on a high. It's not just a problem in London. San Francisco has seen a dearth of innovation in the last few years. I hardly see any dance anymore because I find it disappointing. I've been seeing a lot more theater lately, which has been more satisfying.