“The question is of course the answer and the form in which the answer exists. ”

When I first heard that I thought it was the strangest thing ever. But it does make sense after discussing it.

The whole performance was puzzling.

The whole time I was hysterically laughing (silently of course). Perhaps it was the confusion that made it so funny.

Initially, I could not help but wonder: what, about that whole performance, could make anyone do anything but laugh?? Why was it only the students giggling? Did we miss something important? Were we just too tired to understand?

I think we did. I do not think this was a suitable performance for us at all. We were tired, confused and only slightly amused.

From the beginning, I expected people to dance, ACTUALLY dance.

What we endured was nothing of the sort. The introduction was so long, and the monotone voice of Lemmon made me tune him out. I know he was trying to be deep, and perhaps he was saying meaningful words, but it just did not sink in.

And so, I waited patiently for the long and strange introduction to end and the dance to begin. At that point I knew better than to expect a traditional dance.

However, as time passed, I began to get even more confused. Why was there crying?

What was the point to the scene with the walrus (which apparently was there, but all I saw from my far away seat was a blob)? Why was Lemmon twirling a sock?

Most importantly I wondered why people were leaving, and why everyone was not as amused as I was. What was I missing?

This bothered me so much that when I thought about it, I actually stopped my quiet laughter. I stared puzzled at the stage before me.
What was Lemmon trying to say and why are we not able to understand it? I scanned the booklet in the subway, searching for clues to the meaning I had missed.

I found just what I had expected: Nothing! In frustration, I waited five days until I would get any sort of explanation.

After the class discussion with Dr. Katherine Profeta I was able to see a whole new side of the production. Instead of viewing it as a funny piece without any specific direction, we were able to find a unifying theme for the piece. There was so much to discuss: there was meaning and symbolism behind everything!

Now that I have more knowledge of the piece I kind of feel guilty for laughing. The piece is about not only the loss of people close to Lemmon, but it is about the universality of loss, love and time. Like the planet Solaris from the sci-fi movie, the piece brings out the innermost thoughts in Lemmon’s mind. Perhaps this is why it was so abstract: thoughts are rarely as simple as a structured dance can convey. For this reason, the unique choreography and the breakdown of the bodies were appropriate to the complex meaning of the piece.

Nevertheless Dr. Profeta emphasized that the true meaning of the piece is only equally as important as our reaction to it. For me, this piece was an emotional catharsis. I have not laughed that much in so long, and this piece left me feeling refreshed and energetic. Understanding the piece did make me respect it and Ralph Lemmon more, but it did not change how it made me feel. I think if I truly understood the piece while watching, I would have ended up crying and leaving the theater feeling much worse.



When I initially noticed the Ralph Lemmon Dance on the syllabus back in September, two thoughts ran through my head – first, how am I going to get to Brooklyn and second, I can easily stay in the house all day without going anywhere. As we began reading through the syllabus, I got really excited – we were going to see a dance piece! Little did I know that the performance would be nothing like what I expected.

I arrived at the theater, and showed my ticket to the usher. I knew I was sitting in the orchestra section, but I had no idea how close to the stage my seat was. I was in the third row, practically sitting on the stage. I was able to hear the thumps as the dancers threw themselves onto the ground, and I saw the sweat dripping from their faces. As close as I was to the stage, I was still envious of the members of the audience who sat in the first row – they really were sitting on the stage.

The dance show began with a movie, which struck me as rather odd. When the screen came down, I figured there would be a little film introduction, not more than 10 minutes long. I was most definitely mistaken. The movie went on for more than 30 minutes, and I spent the majority of the time trying to discern the purpose of showing it. I kept saying to myself, “This performance is only an hour and a half…When are the music and dancing going to start?”

The dancing eventually began; however, the music never did. The dancers came onto the stage, barefoot, wearing leggings similar to the leggings I used to wear for jazz. They then started moving around the stage, with no apparent form or rhythm. It was a confusing modern dance segment to watch and it went on for about 20 minutes. Luckily for our class, Professor Profeta of Queens College, worked with Ralph Lemmon on the piece and came to our class to discuss the major themes and meanings behind the piece. She began her lecture by explaining to us that the dance involved in the 20 minutes of straight dancing, was indeed a form of freestyle dance. She used the term “minimally structured improvisation” to describe the technique. The dancers were given tasks that needed to be accomplished during the 20 minutes, and planned to be in certain locations of the stage at established times; however, the dancers were improvising for the majority of the segment.

While watching the performance, I didn’t understand the significance of the animals, such as the rabbit and the hare. To be honest, even after our discussion in class, I still don’t fully comprehend the point of including these animals in the performance. I was a little disappointed to learn that if I had been sitting further back in the theater I would have believed the dog was real: From my seat in the third row, I knew right away that it was fake. After the dog was projected on the stage for a few minutes, other animals appeared. When I saw these animals, my initial thought was that the dancers in the performance were supposed to be imitating animals. Most animals don’t think before they act – they just move their bodies on a whim. The performers, similar to animals, were letting their bodies lead rather than their brains.

I must say that the most interesting part of the night was when I got into my car to go home and I saw the dancers on their bikes outside of the theater. Usually, when I go to a Broadway show, the actors spend a long time backstage following the performances, and then sign playbills outside of the theater. This performance was definitely different than I was used to in many ways, and the fact that the dancers left immediately following the performance was the icing on the cake.

The Ralph Lemmon Dance seems to encompass many random ideas and emotional states into one performance. Although I did not personally find the piece to be as entertaining as some of the other shows we enjoyed this semester, I am happy to have had the opportunity to see a modern dance piece. Still, the next time I go to a dance show, I expect to hear music.

After the first five minutes of sitting in BAM theater watching “How can you sit in the house all day and not go anywhere?” by Ralph Lemmon, I wanted to leave.  The theater seemed old and dilapidated, but inside they had really pretty columns (I posted a picture in my photjournal).  The video section of Lemmon’s dance piece was so boring- it was about an old man rolling around in a space suit and a man dressed up in a bunny costume.  I honestly am not sure what was even going on.  I wondered if the dance section would be shown on screen too or if there would be real people.  Oh yeah, and the screen reminded me of Little Foxes.  Finally the torturous video section ended and the real people came on to dance.  And what a dance it was.  I have never seen anything like it, if I could even call it a dance.  The dancers were flailing and twirling and there was no structure, choreography or apparent skill.  To me, it just seemed like watching five year olds twirl, spin and flail for a very long time.  Then there was what felt like a fifteen minute section of an empty stage with the sound of a woman’s cries.  This reminded me of Taxi Driver when Travis Bickle was on the phone with the Palantine girl who dumped him, and the camera shows the empty hallway with the sounds of the uncomfortable conversation because the stage was empty but you still heard the sounds of her cries.  During her crying I saw many people get up to leave.  I wasn’t sure why she was crying because there was no plot or anything, just twirling, flailing and then crying.  And when she finished crying, people came back and started flailing and falling on the floor again (presumably dancing).

Even though I didn’t like the dance, talking to the dramaturge changed my opinion of it.  I still don’t like the performance and I still wouldn’t see it again, but it really changed my understanding of it.  Before speaking to her, I had NO understanding at all.  Now at least I can understand it in an intellectual way as a piece of art.  The goal of the performance was to break down dance and body movement and recognizable shapes.  This avant-garde way of thinking reminds me of Picasso and Braque’s Cubism phase where they broke down recognizable shapes and objects into its parts.  Maybe one of the reasons I disliked it so much is because it is so avant-garde and far from what we normally expect, but maybe in fifty years this will become the norm, who knows?

I also liked some of the symbolism that was present in the performance, such as the way it stretched on and on, and the audience never knew it was going to end until it did.  In this way it mimicked life, and how we never know what the future holds, and we can be floating in a phase for so long, unsure how much time we have left, until it changes abruptly.

Also, when I saw the performance I thought it was weird that after crying for ten minutes the woman picked up a tambourine and left, but after the discussion I thought it worked.  In class she said that the reason she picked up the tambourine was because when the music and beat started up, she wanted to join in with the tambourine, but her grief and pain were too fresh and it was too soon so she couldn’t get into the moment.

I was also surprised about the woman’s crying- I wasn’t sure if she was crying or faking, and if she was crying, I assumed it would be like she forced herself to cry.  But today I discovered that she was actually crying and really meant it- she has a crying book filled with sad stories and pictures, and she reads them and cries for all the people who have suffered tragedies and loss.

I really like the idea of the performance, what its purpose was, and the things we discussed about it, but I just didn’t like the performance itself.  I don’t know why, but I just couldn’t appreciate people flailing and random animals sitting on a back screen.  It was just hard to understand.

Modern culture sees dance as a form of entertainment, art and something to admire.  So it’s clear that there’s more than one role of dance in modern culture.  Its fun, obviously, cause if it wasn’t, fewer people would be doing it.  But it’s also functional; dance is a means of expression, especially in contemporary dance.  A dancer puts their emotion into a dance and makes it personal, much the same way an actor might.  A dance with passion and fervor makes for a very entertaining performance where the person watching is sitting there thinking “wow this guy/girl really loves what they do, I wish I could dance like them,” whereas when a person just goes through the motions without any feeling whatsoever makes the audience feel nothing.  I can say I know this from experience because I dance, while it may not contemporary or modern, its still a form of dance.  So I can tell from watching other people dance and from dancing myself, that a performance done without vigor, energy and life serves no purpose. 

The role of dance is very important, but it’s also under appreciated at times.  People don’t get as excited about seeing a dance performance as much as they would for a Broadway show or a movie.  Even if a show turns out to be popular and well worth seeing, it might not appeal to everyone.  For example, not everyone likes ballet, they may say its beautiful, but if you tell them to sit through a whole ballet recital they might not be so willing to.  It’s difficult to find a form of dance that everyone will like, but on a specific level, certain forms of dance appeal to certain demographics, like a particular generation or age group or ethnicity.  Sometimes there are exceptions that make it into those demographics, like on TV, where shows like Dancing with the Stars and So You Think You Can Dance bring contemporary dance and ballroom dancing into the homes of millions who vote for their favorite dancer.  Movies are another form in which dance is now appreciated, any movie that contains a musical number has choreography in it that gets copied by at home viewers, like High School Musical, where every child who watched it can now dance to every song in it.

Dance is now a big part of everyday expression and entertainment, people do it to have a good time, or to exercise, or even just to spend time with friends.  Performances give those people the chance to take center stage and move in ways they wouldn’t in public (cause the average person doesn’t break out in choreographed dance on the street [unless they are performing for money]).  It lets them be awed at and feel proud. When you see someone perform a step that looks amazing or impossible you stop and admire it.  A performance is a chance for a dancer to demonstrate their skills and show off their hard work.  A dancer works as hard and as long as any writer, actor or artist on their masterpiece.  They dance because they love to and because they enjoy it.  A dance performance is their project; it’s as much a work of art as a painting or film.