Art is eclectic, with artists getting ideas anywhere from within their own home to another continent. The dance “Toot Is Loot”, a collaboration between Jennifer Lacey and Wally Cardona, is just that. I think it would be interesting to see a dance show that has not just one theme, but many themes involved because it keeps the show captivating.
In Brian Seibert’s review, “With the Help of Unusual Outsiders, Find Love in Strange Objects”, he gives us a good idea of what to expect from such an eclectic piece. He starts off with some background information about both how this dance came to be and about the choreographers, which is always an interesting read. He knows this particular story is interesting and unusual so he does a good job of grabbing the reader’s attention. He goes on to inform the reader about how Lacey and Cardona each added a piece of themselves into the dance, keeping it unique and original. Even though this review is heavy on the background of the choreographers, it really allowed me to understand why Seibert feels the way he does about this dance.
Seibert covers everything from the dancers’ performances to the musical score of the dance. His review is holistic, and doesn’t spend too much time explaining to us just one aspect (such as the plot of the dance) of “Toot Is Loot”. He is also very honest with the reader in his review, telling us that the ending was confusing for him.
I feel this was a successful review because it told me most of what I needed to know about this dance. The tidbits of information about the background of this dance kept me intrigued and Seibert is not biased.
Hi Anna! I agree that it is important for a review to cover many aspects of the performance because it allows the audience to develop their thoughts about the review. If a reviewer focuses on only a couple of the aspects, it makes the reader wonder what is being left out and why. For this reason, I think it is good that Seibert didn’t go on any further about the choreographers. He focused on that background because he thought it was intriguing and important but also made sure not to leave out the many other aspects of the performance.
I liked the fact that while he was confused about the ending, he didn’t bash the work like I’ve seen in previous critiques. Despite the fact that he was lost at the end, I felt he gave the performance a good review. I agree with Keith’s point that the “reader wonders what is left out and why” because that is how I felt while reading this. I wondered why he didn’t talk about certain aspects of the performance and why he chose not to.