Dance can be a complicated art to understand. Unlike theater, the stories in dance are unfolded with the body’s movement and little dialogue. Whether one understands the dance or not can shapes the opinion of a person to recommend it or not.
Brian Seibert reviews “Tool Is Loot,” starting off with a vague opinion of the plot of the dance. He first introduces the name of the dance, the main dancers, and states that the dance was “circuitous.” Choosing that word vaguely illustrates Seibert’s opinion of the dance. I believe that he is connoting the word to say that the plot of the dance got lost as it progressed. This may not be revealed at first as Seibert speaks of the history of how this dance came to be, and compliments the dance before breaking down his review of the characters in the dance, which are also displayed in a positive light. He even praises the music that was used in the dance. Then he drops the bomb. At the end of his review, Seibert states that the ending of the dance ‘lost him,’ and that it trailed off from what it was in the beginning. Then at the very end, he states “And such enchanting performers as these should be seen.” The tone, depicting disappointment in the dance, and the placement of this sentence both indicate that Seibert does not recommend this dance. At least that is what I have deducted from his review.
In Gia Kourlas’ review of “Chapa Quente,” she begins with the background of the choreographer. Then she continues on and gives information about the dance, describing parts of what she saw. Gia continues her review and brings up another dance that is being held at the same place as ‘Chapa Quente’ and compares the two dances. I think that by comparing the two dances, Gia is able to convince the audience that ‘Chapa Quentes’ is a better dance to watch. Her opinion of ‘Chapa Quente’ is shown at the ending through her tone of how the dance was successful in its portrayal of Hip Hop on stage.
You mentioned that Seibert “dropped the bomb” towards the end of his review. Did you like that he took so long to tell you what he thought of the dance or did you want to find out earlier? Personally, I’d rather know from the start how the reviewer feels about the exhibition or artwork from the beginning instead of having to read a piece that beats around the bush.
I understand your take on the review, however, I believe that Seibert shed positive light on the play by calling the actors “enchanting performers”. Even though he was lost at the end of the play, he found it to be curious and worthwhile.
Sharon,
You mention that Kourlas’ comparison of the two dances proves effective, a powerful means of convincing the audience to see Chapa Quente. Do you believe that comparisons serve as an auspicious asset to every review?
Anna,
I would prefer to know of his opinion earlier on in the review like you do. I feel like I understand the reviewer’s opinion better that way, and personally I don’t like it when people go in an indirect way to convey their message.
Camille,
I agree with you; some words that he uses can hint to the reader that he actually enjoyed the play.
Mark,
I don’t think that comparisons would be favorable for every review. Honestly, I think it’s a way to bring out the positive things of one performance by criticizing or praising another performance. I think that if a performance is astounding, the reviewer should be able to show that by itself without the help of another performance.