Pascal Rambert’s A (micro) history of world economics, danced was a difficult piece to fully appreciate. I was impressed by many of its foundational aspects–the quiet power of using dozens of diverse performers, the didacticism of Éric Méchoulan’s lectures on economic philosophy, the supplementary background music and vocal performance. But at the same time, I struggled to understand how all these various qualities of the performance came together as a representation of world economics. Certain portions of the performance were straightforward: Méchoulan’s lectures were clearly referring to economic theories and ideas, the anonymous performers were intended to symbolize the varied population of New York City (or perhaps the world?), and the section in which all the performers presented one object that belonged to them was supposed to represent the materiality of ownership and property. Yet so many other parts of the performance seemed abstract and nearly irrelevant to the ideas being posited in the teachings. I was confused for much of the first half of the performance because I couldn’t reconcile the various skits being performed by the three lead actresses with the symbolic gestures/hand movements prevalent throughout the entire piece. I had trouble differentiating between the various characters the performers portrayed and I found some of the portrayals unnecessary, overstated, and even distracting (such as the demonstration of an item exchange between 3 islands or the extended sequence in which all the performers were jumping simultaneously).
The word “inconsistent” came to my mind often while I watched this perhaps over-extended 90 minute performance. The last 30 minutes of the performance were highly engaging and I was particularly delighted by the confession-like section in which some of the nameless performers came up to a microphone to talk about moments in their lives. I was taken by the intimacy and surprising personableness of the speakers and the stories they had to share (particularly the Asian man who loved Carrie Underwood!) This section struck me too because it contrasted so greatly with the rigidly structured and heavy-handed nature of the skits. I found a reprieve of sorts from these belabored and over-exaggerated characterizations in the normalcy of the feelings and moments that the performers discussed. I also felt this way about the object presentation section because so many of the objects reminded me of items in my own home that are significant to me for various personal reasons. I found myself able to relate more easily to the performers during these glimpses of simple honesty that lent a greater sense of accessibility to the performance as a whole.
I say that Rambert’s piece is inconsistent because it took over half of the performance time to even reach this more relatable portion of the performance. Although there were many humorous and entertaining parts, sprinkled with good acting and beautiful choral singing, these individual sparkling moments were overshadowed by the fact that the performance was esoteric and difficult to grasp at several instances. Méchoulan’s lectures, while interesting, were also sometimes very abstract and theoretical. As someone with little background in economics aside from introductory/basic concepts, I felt overwhelmed by all the terminology and theories, especially because there was so much else going on simultaneously on the performance floor. These more convoluted aspects of the performance made it harder to have an overall positive impression of the piece. Despite the fact that I felt the last half hour of the performance made up for many of its shortcomings, I couldn’t help but feel like the performance didn’t come together as one coherent piece in my mind. I was grappling with the connections from scene to scene and in the end felt like I was trying to force ideas together that didn’t really belong. I am impressed by Rambert’s ambition and vision in constructing a performance piece about economics, but it ultimately lacked the underlying uniformity and coherence that could have made it brilliant.
–Norine Chan (Blog A)
As Norine mentioned, Rambert’s piece A (micro) history of world economics, danced was a struggling performance to interpret. As the first theatrical performance I ever attended, besides the obvious school plays, I had little to no expectations. Waiting for the performance, however, was a whole different perspective. “We are waiting to get on the waiting list,” said the couple of young adults behind me. “The performance is sold out,” would repeat Ms. Uchizono. ‘Could people really be so interested in danced economics?’ I kept thinking as my anticipation grew for this spectacular performance.
The stage was humble and yet so tidy. I observed the corners of what looked like an abandoned warehouse paved in light grey spotless cement and adorned by parallel and shrinking lights. The space was so vast and empty, the opportunities of a successful and bold performance seemed so infinite. The show commenced with one of the leads reciting a monologue about a dying man. The pacing of her performance was very accurate and slow to the point of struggle to take a step. She repeated these gestures which I initially could not understand, but yet kept emerging as an explicit motif. The slow paced monologue was then followed by a more dynamic influx of people, all dressed in different garments and walking in different directions. As a performance on world economics, I thought the parallel was clever. Rambert utilized each person to represent a certain generic piece of population. His re-interpretative style of (micro) world economics was indeed (micro) world economics and that amused me. I spent more time observing each individual person rather than following the actions of the leads and sometimes I would then lag behind Éric Méchoulan’s philosophical lectures on the history of economics. His lectures, I thought, were a little too sophisticated for an audience of art students just entering college. The jumps between theoretical concepts of different times would sometimes be so random that conceptually, the message was being lost. Rather than a coherent performance on a clear message, Rambert’s teachings on economics became a fuzzy conglomeration of stories relating to economics.
The lack of clarity was rather due to my own personal lack of knowledge rather than the lack of ability of Pascal Rambert to clarify his show. The skits were actually amusing, although sometimes, like Norine stated, useless. Such missing utility could have been given by the fact that the (micro) performances themselves seemed to be randomized and in no clear order. The bit that really confused me was the auction between the three British men. Singling this fragment out, I would have liked to understand what concept the auction intended to convey, what message (if any) relied on the short segment and what for.
Anyway, as the performance developed, I was sometimes ecstatic to see some dynamic movements which created a sense of dance in the show. Although the title itself announced an integrated element of dance, I felt like the (micro)history resembled more a play than a dance. So when, the island skit came and people swayed like waves, I was glad to find a little difference in dynamics from the static setting of the plays. Perhaps the lack of movement under my perspective was given once again by my very lack of knowledge with which I entered the performance. The repetition of moves all throughout the performance could have had more meaning if I just stopped and took the time to analytically observe them. These movements, which I thought were amusing because they changed meaning as each of the three leads presented a new monologue, were continuously repeated as a recurring motif, but the actual and ultimate meaning behind them I still could not interpret.
Finally, to integrate the element of randomization which I continuously envisioned during Rambert’s performance, the final act emerged. An act in which all different people shared an item of value to themselves. Touching, yes; but what did it mean? How was the whole exposition a piece of history on economics? When the act started, I became a little skeptical. The play had just turned from a message on economics to a theme on diversity and it left me even more puzzled. I started questioning the relevance of the piece, especially since I should have predicted the shift in topic during the previous letter-reading segment in which impromptu characters shared hand written stories. I found it amusing, yes. I watched people hovering near the microphone and eyeing it as they knew the choir was approaching and the end of their fame tagging behind it. People would take out their letters and walk slowly whenever they approached the microphone, ready to share a bit of their lives. Such piece I thought applied more to the theme of diversity rather then economics, but how would I know any better.
Anyway, as the characters improvised the last segment of item sharing during the performance, I developed confused feelings towards the play, as I will now address it rather than a dance. The meaning became less clear to me and rather than an insightful lecture, the play became an amusing performance to which I will relate by analyzing the movements during the show, but not the contents of the skits. Perhaps, just perhaps, I should have stepped in more knowledgeable. Perhaps.
Keith Merlin Anne Ilagan (Blog B)