Wendy Oliver says that a review is based on four components, description, analysis, Interpretation, and evaluation, with description being the support for the other three. In Gia Kourlas’s review of John J Zullo’s production, “All what THIS do HAS you Happened see? Before,” Kourlas vividly describes important moments to us and then continues to analyze, interpret and evaluate, quite ruthlessly, Zullo’s production.
Kourlas describes the beginning of the performance and the set of the stage and gives us his feeling on that set up. He is very clearly annoyed and dislikes the performance from the beginning. He tries to find meaning in the work but considers it random at many points and in his analysis he can not find much meaning. Wendy Oliver says that sometimes we just don’t “get it” and that this might just be the fault of the director, as is the case here – and this case is supported by Kourlas.
Kourlas continues to describe the performance, interprets the movements correctly, but it is difficult not to interpret the movements correctly because, according to Kourlas, the performance was treacle. He notices that the dancers are soulfully peering through sheets of glass as if searching the dark recesses of their brain – but the movements were fragmented and too similar. This performance seemed to be full of pretension and surface, to put words into Kourlas’ mouth. He describes the next phase of the dance as having a too literal meaning with no real meaning to be uncovered – a bum-esque character acting as both victim and victimizer.
Kourlas finishes his review by summing up the point he has been making all along: Mr.Zullo manages to work sentimentality into every step he makes and that tendency makes the whole thing forgettable. Kourlas’ review was clearly a negative one but it was backed up and supported through description and his attempts to analyze and interpret. Unfortunately there was nothing to analyze as the point of the performance was written on its sleeve and there was nothing personal to interpret because of the lack of “emotional luminosity”, as Kourlas puts it.
According to Oliver’s rubric: Kourlas’ introduction was a 4, his identification of information was a 3, thesis statement was a 4, description was a 4, analysis and interpretation and evaluation was a 4, flow was a 4, and his conclusion was a 4. While it seemed to be at first that Kourlas didn’t vividly describe the movements of the actors in great detail, he did describe what they were supposed to be doing, such as soulfully peering through glass, and gathering beneath a spotlight with their irritatingly obscured bodies. I think he described the movements when they seemed to be meaningful, and that is what counts.
