3 thoughts on “Dance Review of “Einstein on the Beach””

1. Brian Seibert’s dance review of “Einstein on the Beach” loosely follows the Feldman Model of Criticism. Two of four elements of this model are clear throughout the review for Seibert ties together the description and analysis of the four hour long opera. He elaborates on time as a distinct subject of “Einstein,” picking out different parts of the show as examples of this theme. Such examples include: “…the protracted but steady transit of an object serves as a measure of linear time… repetitions of Mr. Glass’s music… suggest loops that might never end”, “stylization of [the two stenographers’] behavior… has the appearance of slow motion even when it’s full speed”, and so on. In this manner, Seibert weaves his description of the opera into his analysis. He describes different elements of the performance and how they work together with each other and the score to give readers a sense of what the show is really about.

   His interpretation of the opera is also present in the review, in which he writes about his take on the meaning of different themes and elements. He believes that movements that look like time is being manipulated is “Wilson’s kind of dance… activity drawn out to increase legibility.” He does not, however, provide much of an evaluation. He touches on Wilson’s brilliance as a composer at the very end of the review, but he does not elaborate on the contributions of Glass and Childs as composer and choreographer, respectively. Seibert’s review is clear and thorough enough to provide readers with a good idea of the show, but it would have been better if he had included a more explicit recommendation.

2. Brian Seibert’s review of “Einstein on the Beach” closely follows Wendy Oliver’s Feldman model of criticism. Seibert begins his review with a description of the dance. He notes the subject of the dance, the visual design, and movements made by the dancers on stage. It is clear that Seibert aimed to make a description without any conclusions attached to it. His description is more or less a list of features of the dance, so his review follows the Feldman model in this sense. Seibert continues his review with some analysis of the characteristics of the dance. He mentions how the irregularities and small changes in the repetitious movements make them stand out. The review then switches to more subjective matters in the interpretation. Seibert details the emotions evoked during “Einstein on the Beach”. He mentions how in certain scenes he received a “heavenly” sense. In a Feldman fashion, Seibert ends his review with a overall evaluation of the dance. He applauds the choreographer Robert Wilson, saying “nobody else constructs a contraption quite the way he does.”

3. Brian Seibert incorporates both the Feldman Model of Criticism and Wendy Oliver’s suggested format for critique in his review of the remake of “Einstein on the Beach”. In his introduction, he provides the important details about the performance of discussion, such as its name, the date of its original construction and its original choreographer, Robert Wilson. Along with this description, he lays out his thesis as well, thereby adhering to the conventional structure of critique that Oliver suggests. As for his following the Feldman Model, he simultaneously employs the elements of description and analysis in the same paragraphs. In this sense, he also pertains to Oliver’s suggested format in that he provides a thesis sentence for a paragraph and develops it by offering particularly outstanding details. For example, in the first few body paragraphs, he provides his analysis that touches on the difference between most other operas and “Einstein on the Beach” by characterizing it as a performance that showcases “images that move to music” rather than following a story. Then, he supports this claim of everything that occurs during and between the scenes being choreographed by referring to the stagehands that even dance as they assemble the sets for the scenes.

   Furthermore, Seibert writes more body paragraphs that develop further his thesis of the performance’s emphasis of “pattern over content”. He lays out body paragraphs with smaller theses that are supported by details such as slightly unusual ballet steps performed with Mr. Glass’s structured “sung numbers”.

   Seibert displays the interpretation and evaluation elements of the Feldman Model towards the end of his review. He makes sense of the analyses he provides by comparing the protracted elements of this remake to those of the original performance choreographed by Wilson. He notices that, although Ms. Child points to conspicuous “small changes and irregular patterning” amidst many repetitions just as Mr. Wilson did, she does so subtly and with more restraint. Therefore, he concludes that the remake does imitate Wilson’s essential methods well, but lacks the richness present in Wilson’s construction.

Comments are closed.