Alastair Macaulay follows Wendy Oliver’s chosen model — the Feldman model — of dance criticism to the T.
He first starts his write-up with general background of the piece. He gives the time (Tuesday, the week of September 20, 2013), the place (the Alexander Kasser Theater at Montclair State University), the length (60 minutes), and the choreographer’s name (Liz Gerring). He starts off exactly how Oliver suggests any dance critique should start.
In the first paragraph, he describes the dance movements as “hurl[ling],” “skim[ming],” and “bobbing.” Oliver states, on page 79 to, “use strong and varied action words…interesting adjectives…colorful adverbs,” and so on. Macaulay did just that.
Also in his first paragraph, he states his thesis, expressing that the “work has wit… [and that] its moods change like the weather… carry[ing] aspects of poetry and excitement.” Oliver requires a thesis statement for the piece as a whole, rather than just sweeping statements about specific parts.
Oliver likes the use of similes and metaphors. Macaulay, early on in his critique, compares the background of the piece to being “like a blank cinema screen.” He also says the dancing is “as if breaking down boundaries and worlds.” He uses metaphors and similes to describe what he is seeing, thus creating a visual for his readers.
He then, in his third paragraph introduces the musician (Michael J. Schumacher), who influenced the dance piece. Macaulay describes the sound created and comments, “the overlap of different instruments suggests not musical harmony but a soundscape of wide multiplicity.” His innate ability to put into words what sounded so beautiful is amazing. Although I didn’t personally hear the music, I am already in awe of what it must have sounded like.
In his next paragraph, he brings in outside knowledge and opinion. He singles out one of the dancers (Benjamin Asriel) and describes how he has taken on a new role that is different from other pieces Macaulay has seen him in. This is impressive to me because it shows he really knows his stuff. He isn’t just reading other reviews and comparing what he reads. He is commenting on plays he has already seen that featured the same actor.
I noticed that he often uses the first person. Oliver says that it is ok to use the first person or the third person, but that she particularly thinks the first person tense is more “conversational because it brings the reader into direct verbal contact with the writer” (91).
He later goes into detail about one aspect of the dance: the entrances and exits. He uses the first person to explain why he thinks some of the movements are funny. He also says that the movements are “both delivered coolly but excitingly.” He expresses his opinion throughout the paper, but not in a judgmental way, as Oliver stresses should be reserved to the end of the critique. He brings in personality and character without forcing the reader to think one way or another about the piece yet.
He concludes with the analysis. He claims that the dance “changes from a seemingly analytical study into a diverse world.” That the quality of the dance “adds fascination” and that the piece is “moving.” This is where he finally adds his interpretation and judgment. He backs up his claim by telling us that he “scrutinize[ed] the movement.” This is his personal opinion, and following Oliver’s checklist, his opinion is explained.
I have read his critique a number of times now to check for spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes and I have yet to find any. His sentences all vary in length and many provide vivid imagery, as mentioned and exampled above. His paper is very interesting to read because I can feel the excitement he put into writing it.
Kyle Leighton
