Have you ever been to a theater where you were seated across from the other audience members with the stage in between the two groups of spectators? Have you ever seen tight strings hanging from one end of the stage to the other, as a prop for dancers? I surely haven’t, but a show that has been playing recently at the BAM Theater, choreographed by the Brian Brooks Moving Company, performed using these unique props. In the article, Taut Wires as a Foil for Curves, Brian Seibert reviews his time at this dance show, entitled “Run Don’t Run.” This particularly caught my eye in the Arts section of the paper because we are going to the BAM Theater this week, and it’s interesting to see several distinctive shows playing at this venue. For instance, I have a hard time imagining how Nosferatu can be staged at a theater seeing as to its strange vampire plot. Meanwhile, Siebert went to watch a unique performance at BAM as well, for I have never seen a dance performance where the dancers were falling back on strings.
Siebert begins his review well, by stating how the dancers utilized the strings. They would thread between the lines, lie on them or clamp the strands. He says the strings would “slice and dice” the images of bodies at different angles. To me, this sounds very interesting, yet for some reason, after a few small paragraphs of description, Siebert gets bored. He found the overall structure of the piece predictable and sloppy. He felt like each dance had the same pattern, a person methodically takes up a task, then someone joins in, then someone else, and that was all. As a final pun and sarcastic punch in his last sentence he states that he found the dancers and strings “admirably taut, but the piece” kept “going slack.”
Personally, I found the idea of dancing with this interesting prop of tight strings quite fascinating. I was also interested in learning about the experience of watching a performance while observing the other half of the audience, since there were audience members sitting on both sides of the stage. I wish Siebert would have done this composition more justice, going into more detail about the performance. I feel like there was so much more he could have discussed. I would love to learn about what the dancers wore, what kinds of pieces they performed, what kinds of moves they utilized, and so much more.
First off, it would have been nice of Siebert to address his experience in the audience facing the stage, which was in the middle of the theater. Did he find this setting distracting? Did he find himself looking over to notice other spectators’ reactions? I’m curious about what this type of setting in a theater is like. Other than that, the show itself sounds quite interesting, and I wish Siebert would have devoted more time to speaking about the performance. Did he find the performers captivating? What kinds of dances did they do? Did he find the strings completely unnecessary or could he imagine them as a useful prop in other dance pieces? What were his thoughts on this “slicing” of bodies and dancers” that he saw while watching this performance? Overall, Siebert descriptions needed to go beyond simply stating that he saw symmetry, and eventually got bored of it all. I want to learn about the feelings that these pieces evoked in him, except for boredom, which is so vague and varied. Performing on a stage which resembles a harp laid on its side sounds like a great springboard for things to discuss, yet Siebert seems to reach a dead-end. Why was this setting so off-putting for him and so predictable in comparison to other performances he has seen?
Overall, the avoidance and brevity of this piece is quite frustrating for I feel like the topic, “Run Don’t Run,” fosters so much conversation. What do you guys think? Would you be interested in seeing a show where you are facing the other half of the audience? Do you think it’s interesting to utilize taut strings as a prop? Take a look at Siebert’s article, and judge for yourself whether he did this piece justice, tell me below!
Siebert, Brian. “Taut Wires as Foil for Curves.” The New York Times. N.p., 25 Oct. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/arts/dance/brian-brooks-moving-company-presents-run-dont-run-at-bam.html?ref=arts&_r=0>.
In answer to your question, I am extremely intrigued to see for myself Brooks’ production of what seems to be a unique and mesmerizing performance. Siebert’s review seems to criticize the tedious repetition and lack of fluid choreography. However, his article didn’t discourage my interest in “Run Don’t Run.” If anything, I would be more eager to see if my opinion aligned with his. Logically, I understand why watching an hour of what may seem to be the same motions can drain a performance of its value, but the incorporation of unusual props takes precedence. However, from the photo, the dancers look very poised and deliberate with their actions. This strangely disappoints me. In my mind, the creation of the “giant harp” stage conjured an image of acrobatic dancers tight-rope walking across the highest line and back-flipping down. Perhaps, Siebert, as well, had expected a powerful and up beat gymnastic intense routine.
I also agree that Siebert’s terse style of writing leaves many questions unanswered. I’m interested in his experience with being able to clearly see the reactions of other audience members. The ability to see the audience respond seems to be a critical feature of Brooks’ dance. For Siebert to exclude that major component seems negligent.
After reading your review, I could not help but read the original article about “Run Don’t Run”. Personally, I find the aspect of using taut strings truly amazing. It reflects the “out-of-the-box” creativity, which incites curiosity and almost forces the viewers to appreciate how people are able to bring something new to arts every day. It’s actually astounding that irrespective of all these centuries, technological advancements, and creative ideas, we are still able to see something different in the field. In fact, taking an IDC course this semester has made me realize why art is considered new and yet immortal.
I find it interesting to think that what is new now will be old and outdated in a moment from now. This is probably what Brian Seibert experienced. While watching the show, he was so immersed with the initial newness of the production that he unconsciously expected a further development on that creativity. Perhaps, he lost sight of the art and what it encompassed when he saw redundancy replacing novelty.
I, too, believe that the original review of the show was terse and therefore failed to supply useful information. Your description of the seating arrangement at BAM Theater, however, made me more curious as to how that experience would feel like. It is more than likely that the seating played a role in how Seibert or other members of the audience perceived the show. I find this new organization much more interactive than the regular theater seating arrangement. This, once again, takes us back to the idea that artists are always looking to add something new, so the audience could take away something different from each performance or production. Having said that, I hope this arrangement doesn’t distract people from what is important—the actors and the art on the stage.
After reading your review, I could not help but read the original article about “Run Don’t Run”. Personally, I find the aspect of using taut strings truly amazing. It reflects the “out-of-the-box” creativity, which incites curiosity and almost forces the viewers to appreciate how people are able to bring something new to arts every day. It’s actually astounding that irrespective of all these centuries, technological advancements, and creative ideas, we are still able to see something different in the field. In fact, taking an IDC course this semester has made me realize why art is considered new, yet immortal.
I find it interesting to think that what is new now will be old and outdated in a moment from now. This is probably what Brian Seibert experienced. While watching the show, he was so immersed with the initial newness of the production that he unconsciously expected a further development on that creativity. Perhaps, he lost sight of the art and what it encompassed when he saw redundancy replacing novelty.
I, too, believe that the original review of the show was terse and therefore failed to supply useful information. Your description of the seating arrangement at BAM Theater, however, made me more curious as to how that experience would feel like. It is more than likely that the seating played a role in how Seibert or other members of the audience perceived the show. I find this new organization much more interactive than the regular theater seating arrangement. This, once again, takes us back to the idea that artists are always looking to add something new, so the audience could take away something different from each performance or production. Having said that, I hope this arrangement doesn’t distract people from what is important—the actors and the art on the stage.
I too had to go look up this article after reading your review. Every time I go to a performance, or even to a movie, I look at other audience members’ reactions to try and see what they are thinking. Often I find the opinions of the audience as interesting as the spectacle itself. So I, like you, wish the author of the New York Times article would have spent more time discussing what he saw on the faces of the people sitting across from him.
I actually went to a dance exhibition last year that had a similar layout. It was purposefully held in a circular arena so that audience members could see one another around a plane of 360 degrees. Afterwards I read in the program that the producer of the showed had arranged it this way because he believed that an audience should have a feeling of camaraderie. He stated that the dance (which was supposed to be humorous) would be laughed at more if people saw those across from them laughing as well. And in that performance I certainly felt that the humor was enhanced by the fact that I was engaging not only the performers but also the other audience members.
I felt, reading the article, that Siebert missed an opportunity here to discuss a new aspect of the theater industry. Of course he needed to give his review of the dance, but I wish that he had recorded how other audience members had reacted and if they had found it as repetitive as he did. The theater was designed that way for a reason and he overlooked that in his article.
Honestly, I would be very interested to see a show like this. The concept seems amazing actually. Strings, in my opinion, have always been interesting props to use. If you think about it, in most shows, a flying actor’s life depends on the durability of the string. It holds so much, yet if it snaps, anything can happen. Anyway, in regards to the article itself, I don’t think that proper justice was done. I can’t say that I didn’t think that the article wasn’t “fair” to show, because Siebert is allowed to say whatever he wants to. However, it did sound like he was completely bored at one point.
The photo itself looked so interesting! The red strings and the performers caught up in it. It makes me wonder if they ever got caught and couldn’t get out. There is almost no excitement in his voice. The photo and his review is so contradictory. Exciting photo, bland comments.
Janice Fong
As I read your review, I still couldn’t quite picture what this show was. So I decided to go to the ever-so reliable YouTube and search it up. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3u5vVGfjYk).
Now that I had a more clear picture in my head, I think Siebert definitely did not give Brooks, or the entire performance, much justice! Brooks stated in the videos that his intent was to make the energy and flow of the dance lead each move into the next. This show seems like a very difficult show to execute, especially because of the ropes and partner work. This whole show is also quite new to the public, so I can only imagine their reactions.
In response to your questions, I would most likely go watch this show on my own despite my inability to force myself to appreciate the arts. I also find your discussion, on facing the audience, interesting. I would’ve loved to read more detail about that considering I cannot fathom what that experience feels like.
After reading your blog post, I was very curious about the topic and immediately read the original New York Times article to get better understanding of the show. Despite the critical review, I would definitely be interested in seeing a show like “Run Don’t Run.” For me, I love to see other people’s reactions. During any type of performance or show, I always look around the audience to see their reactions. Even the slightest facial expression can convey their opinion of the show and what they are thinking in that moment. In addition, I also find the use of strings as props very intriguing. The photo accompanying the article looks very compelling. This show is completely different from what is showing now. I think Siebert may have been too engrossed with the repetition and failed to focus of the beauty and creativity. I would love to see the show myself and compare my experience to his.