http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/arts/dance/john-j-zullo-dance-raw-movement-delves-into-the-past.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=dance&adxnnlx=1380077009-iPL3Yom4aag0NO/XX9QZyQ
Gia Kourlas’ dance review “Total Recall: Reconstructing Memory, for Better or Worse” was one that reflected the general guidelines in Wendy Oliver’s chapter on Dance Critiques while also showcasing a sense of personal expression through the review itself. The review included the recommended parts such as the date and location of the performance, and elements of the Feldman Model of Criticism (description, analysis, interpretation, evaluation). Oliver emphasizes that the description the writer gives is imperative to the rest of the piece in that it sets the foundation-it serves as a quasi-performance that hopefully aids the reader in understanding the writer’s message.
In the dance review, I noticed that there was not a clear distinction between the aspects of Feldman’s model. Oliver did mention that the style of the writing could be largely determined by the author. This review was a clear example. The description, while vivid and specific, was merged with evaluation, analysis, and interpretation all at once. For example, Kourlas says
“They ducked under the fabric — Mr. Zullo’s visual design obscured bodies in the most irritating way — and gathered beneath a spotlight. Shifting from side to side, dancers pressed their palms together, raised their arms overhead and smacked their upper backs. This random act of self-flagellation came up several times throughout the piece, as well as forward falls that ended in stumbles, and heavy, two-footed landings from jumps. It felt as if we were being force-fed, and the food was emphatic movement.”
Here there is a description of the visual setting (the fabric and concealment of the performers). Yet this description is coupled with an interpretation (assuming the smacking of backs was “random”), analysis (the use of metaphor in saying that “the food was emphatic movement”), and evaluation (“in the most irritating way. . . it felt as if we were being force-fed”). In using this method of critique, the writer seems to be sending a message that at the very least, one’s perception of the piece is hard to separate from one’s own understanding of the piece.
-Prima (Blog B)
