It seems to be that nearly everyone loves the popular TV show “So You Think You Can Dance”. Personally, I have never watched it enough to become an avid follower of the show, but I hear that it is riveting and entertaining. People audition with a dance routine for judges, and if selected to continue, they compete with the other finalists, trying to avoid elimination, until only the winners remain. A review in the NY Times of the “So You Think You Can Dance” live tour at Radio City Music Hall left me wondering if the show is even worth watching. The critic did not enjoy the performance, so much so that she wrote, “I wish that I will never again have to endure anything so tedious, simplistic and amateurish as this empty boob-tube spectacle.” Besides the over-the-top lighting, “screensaver”-like backdrops, and ” loud, but unimpressive” music, the author of the review was horrified by the dancing. She wrote that the routines would be left with nothing if one were to take away the “splits, kicks, hair-tossing, high lifts, gymnastic tricks and posturing.” The most entertaining part about being at the performance seemed to be watching the hardcore fans of “So You Think You Can Dance” as they excitedly cheered on their favorite winners and finalists.
However, aren’t the “splits, kicks, hair-tossing, high lifts, gymnastic tricks and posturing” all part of the dance performance? Isn’t that a huge part of what makes up dance? Maybe the critic is used to more “traditional” dance, because I think that all of the other aspects play a huge role in creating a worthwhile performance. This review made me think of the performances we saw at Fall For Dance. Would the first performance have been as awe-inspiring without the flashy lights, sparkly costumes, and repetitive–sometimes corny– in-sync movements? I think not. I can only wonder what this NY Times critic would have had to say about that performance!
I really enjoy watching “So You Think You Can Dance,” and I think the point about it being mainly glitz and glam is a very good one. The reason why so many people are attracted to this kind of flashy and sometimes over-the-top performance is because it is so exhilarating to watch (at least for me). That’s not at all to say that I think dance should consist principally of people just tossing their hair around or running around the stage but if there is a certain skill level of the dancers, the extra and exciting features like “gymnastic tricks [and] high lifts…” could make it a really great performance. Here’s one of the dances I thought was really awesome:
I really enjoy watching “So You Think You Can Dance,” and I think the point about it being mainly glitz and glam is a very good one. The reason why so many people are attracted to this kind of flashy and sometimes over-the-top performance is because it is so exhilarating to watch (at least for me). That’s not at all to say that I think dance should consist principally of people just tossing their hair around or running around the stage but if there is a certain skill level of the dancers, the extra and exciting features like “gymnastic tricks [and] high lifts…” could make it a really great performance. Here’s one of the dances I thought was really awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLtSfYX8tJk&feature=related
The physicality and athleticism of dance is very attractive. Even if the movements are very slow, they can be inspiring and artistic. some gestures (like the hair tossing) can get old pretty fast. Choreographers can be very creative with the contortions they can impose on the dancers.