http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/arts/dance/john-j-zullo-dance-raw-movement-delves-into-the-past.html?ref=dance
“Total Recall: Reconstructing Memory, for Better or Worse”, a review by Gia Kourlas, gives a denouncing analysis of Raw Movements’ attempt at exploring the novel and familiarity of memory. Most, if not all, of the article was riddled with disappointment and boredom as she listed the different ways the performance did not do it for her. With no mercy, she strikes down the performance as having “little lasting effect”.
Although not the review I expected, I really liked the review, mostly for its brutal honesty. She tears down every part of the performance into its bare essences, and continues to destroy that as well. There is almost a personal feeling of regret in there. This allows us to see his opinion while letting us understand a part of the performance, as if we could see it ourselves.
Kourlas’ review strayed quite a bit from the Feldman model. As opposed to describing the work, then analyzing it, then interpreting it, and finally evaluating it, she mixes the order of these within a chronological retelling of the performance. She gives her interpretation first, giving us the idea of a profound and successful performance, but begins to tear down the veil by giving her opinion among the description and analysis. I liked this loose structure more because it seemed more natural. It made the review really easy to understand and follow.
Overall, although this review didn’t exactly follow the Feldman structure, it was still successful at conveying all the information that the Feldman structure did in a very pleasant way. After reading about dance critiquing, I now understand how to analyze a dance performance, but I also see how you don’t need to adhere to that too religiously.
