YouOverThere Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I finally got around to seeing Riverdance for the first time last night. I came away with what I'm sure will be a minority opinion that while it was entertaining, it wasn't captivating (certainly I seemed to be the only one in the theatre that had that opinion - my date was a bit puzzled by my lack of appreciation). While I could appreciate that what the dancers were doing was extraordinarily difficult physically, from my point of view it was lacking in artistry. I really couldn't detect much difference from one dance to the next (all of which were at about the same pace). Maybe it was because I've never seen Irish dance before and couldn't pick up on the subtleties? In ballet, all the gestures are overdone to make sure that the audience "gets it". In Irish dance, there apparently aren't any arm movements, so it's got to be a lot more difficult to express a feeling. I'd welcome comments on what I should have gotten out of the show. Link to comment
Treefrog Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I'm no expert on Irish dance, but I think the point of it is the complicated rhythms and the intricacy of the steps. I don't think it's meant to convey much emotion. To the extent that the dances in Riverdance do convey emotion, that's a modernization. I've seen Riverdance maybe four or five times over the years (in part because we knew someone in the touring company). My sense is that it was much, much better in the earlier years -- less flashy, but also more electric. There seemed to be more integrity and depth in the dancing ... I can't explain it better than that. Link to comment
Recommended Posts