CAE (Advanced Exam) Listening Test 1

Part 3
15 B 16 A 17 C 18 B 19 C 20 D

You will hear an interview with a woman called Amy Martles, who works as a choreographer,
creating dance performances for live shows.
For questions 15–20, choose the answer A, B, C or D which fits best according to what you hear. In
the exam, you have 70 seconds to look at Part 3.

M: My guest today is the choreographer Amy Martles, who’s put together many diverse dance
productions; everything from classical ballet to modern stage musicals and experimental
modern dance – the list goes on. Amy, tell us, how did you get into choreography in the first
place?
F: Well I got the performance bug as a kid – you know, we’d put on plays at primary school.
Dance was a part of that, though it wasn’t ever to the forefront particularly. Gymnastics was
the thing I excelled at, and it was my sports coach who suggested trying private dance
classes. She saw something in the way I used my body to communicate feeling, and
thought that might be worth developing. She was right. I naturally leaned towards rather
athletic dance styles, and there wasn’t much of a repertoire for that, so creating dances
was the natural way forward. I like to do my own thing, and movement and gesture are a
very effective means of communication. That whole idea’s always fascinated me.
M: So, do you need to be a good dancer to be a good choreographer?
F: Well, when I was a dancer, I had the experience of working under a choreographer and I
keep reminding myself how that felt – how frustrating it can be when the choreographer just
seems to be trying out ideas on a whim – and you’re the guinea pig. You know, after a long
tiring session, that’s the last thing a dancer wants. Any choreographer worth her salt would
pick up on that and call it a day. I’m not sure you have to be an exceptional dancer yourself
though, and I know of choreographers who hardly ever set foot on stage themselves – and
certainly couldn’t reproduce all the steps. Because that’s not the point really – it’s more
what you bring out in others.
M: Sure. Talk us through how you go about creating a new dance.
F: Well it really depends – like, sometimes I’m commissioned for a show where the music, the
narrative – that’s all in place and I’m working within those constraints – and that’s the
challenge. Other times it’s an idea that comes first and I work with the composer to create
something coherent that could be performed as an original piece of dance – and that’s just
as challenging, but in a different way. For that I create the final version with the dancers,
seeing what their bodies can manage, which moves are more achievable or visually
effective. It can be pretty experimental and almost random – like, you might see a
movement that really works by chance – if, say, a dancer slips and creates a particular
shape – and you make something of it.
M: Right. So what do you aim for in your work?
F: Well, I have to feel that everything comes together as a unified whole, that we’re saying
something to the audience that’s honest and meaningful. That means having harmony and
balance in everything – the music, the dance steps, the costumes and the lighting, and
they’re all equally important. Sometimes you can see a piece that has originality and
groundbreaking steps, but performed on a set that’s distracting, and the message gets
blurred. I want to enhance people’s perceptions not confuse them – I want them to
understand what I’m doing and the idea I’m trying to put across. So it’s more about them
than me really, but it’s certainly not about impressing them with flashy moves or anything
like that.
M: I’ve heard choreographers are very choosey about which dancers they’ll work with. What
do you look for in a dancer?
F: For me, it’s got to be someone who’s ready to collaborate in anything and explore any
options without pre-conceptions. I’m pretty intolerant of dancers who go in for introspection or whose egos need massaging. Actually, in some ways, working with students is more
straightforward because they’ve got the basic training, they’re desperate to learn, but
they’re not weighed down with expectations. I guess I like the idea of the blank canvas
best. But if I am working with professionals, then it’s more collaborative, and that’s nice too.
We develop a conversation about the work and through that something emerges – it’s a
coming together of minds, so always stimulating.
M: And if you’re asked to work on a new production of a well-known piece, is it a very different
approach?
F: I think I stay true to the spirit of the piece – and to my own instincts. All art is created to
speak to contemporary audiences. Even productions of historical dramas end up being
about today’s concerns. That’s inescapable. But I wouldn’t set out to change the underlying
ideas in a piece. I know people will inevitably make comparisons with past productions, and
I don’t have a problem with that, but it’s not my starting point. Actually more of an issue for
me is the gulf that people perceive between the experimental original piece and the new
production of a known work – because it just isn’t as wide as they imagine. Sure, the
starting point is different, as are the practical considerations – but if you’re talking about the
essence – the choreographer’s vision – her craft if you like – then for me there’s hardly a
gulf at all.
M: Thanks for your insights, Amy …