http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/arts/dance/lyon-opera-ballet-presents-limbs-theorem.html?ref=dance
Before writing about the dance review I chose, I’d like to say that Wendy Oliver’s Writing about Dance really helped me understand the process of analyzing a dance performance and writing about it in a paper. Before reading this, I always thought that writing dance papers simply entailed putting some jargon on paper and adding some references here and there. I never understood how exactly to capture the emotions and feelings one has when watching a performance in words, or what exactly dance essays were even about. Writing about Dance was able to break down the process for me and show me that its not very different than writing an essay for an English class- just a different subject. However, while in some cases it is good for authors to have a basis, or guideline so that they can collect and refine their thoughts, in some cases it is better to simply let the writing and the idea flow onto paper without restraint.
The dance review I chose was The Dawn of a World, Dreamlike yet Chaotic by Rosyln Sulcas. The review follows the Feldman Model of Criticism discussed by Oliver up to a certain point- using “description, analysis, interpretation and evaluation” when writing a critique. The first thing I noticed was that the title itself was very carefully chosen; it accurately depicts the author’s impression of the very piece and sets the tone for the juxtaposition of order and chaos of the dance piece itself. The first paragraph of the review gives the reader much needed background on the dance piece. While “Limb’s Theorem” was choreographed by William Forsythe, who was director of the now obsolete Frankfurt Ballet, the performance was run at the Lyon Opera Ballet. This information allows the reader to understand that the performance might have not follows the original choreographer’s intent, and that there would be differences in interpretations between both and original performance with the original Ballet and this one.
Ms. Sulcas, after giving some background information, goes into the actual description of the piece. “Just as in life, there is too much happening; the eye must organize, choices must be made, something will be lost” (Sulcas) She describes the movement of boards and the dancers rushes around them, appearing and disappearing out of the view of the reader. That sets the tone for her interpretation, comparing it to life, where there is always a blur of activity, and one must choose what to do and where to look at because there is always something that you will miss. Sulcas stays on the idea of division of vision when looking at the stage for the first part of the dance. She also gives a short analysis of the musical backdrop to the piece, writing about the “electronic score ticks and hums…”, which further support her interpretation of time and the passing of it.
Sulcas differs from the Feldman model in that she splits her analysis of the dance piece into the three parts and places her evaluation of the entire piece at the end, as the dance itself is three parts. In the next paragraph she explains how the second section of the dance, “Enemy in the Figure” is one that is sometimes presented alone, which tells us that the first section is almost like an addition, or a prequel so that the viewer can have a broader understanding and appreciation of the second section. She deftly and concisely describes the movements of the dancers in this section, comparing their movements to the very movement of atoms, who slip and slide and rush past one another in a never-ending abstract dance. She then moves to her depiction of the third section of the dance, though she is rather too concise in her descriptions here. She simply states that there is a multiplication of objects on the stage.
At the very end of her review, Sulcas gives a short evaluation of the entire dance. She states “The Lyon dancers aren’t always consistently clear in the way they show Mr. Forsythe’s use of epaulement…”, and then applauds select dancers in the work. Overall, the language that Sulcas uses in this review is evocative and inspires the reader, painting a beautiful picture of chaos coupled with order, something found from the microscopic to the macroscopic world. However, I feel that she does not include as much description and analysis as she could have for a piece that complex and varied. While she includes abundant background information and analysis, she lacked in description and evaluation. However, she does use many of the points found in Oliver’s writing, from a meaningful title to smooth, flowing writing. In the end, it fulfilled it duty, which was the inspire the reader to see the performance and be an insightful, though-out piece of writing.
Malavika (Blog B)
