Alastair Macaulay’s “Icy White Synapses in a Crackling Heat” is a dance review on the dance work, “Glacier” by Liza Gerring. Macaulay introduces the work by describing the motions of the dancers during the work and the mood it gives off throughout its 60-minute duration. She uses verbs like “hurl, skim, shimmer” and adjectives and phrases like “impetuous slides, nimble footwork and bobbing jumps” to depict the images she saw during the performance.
Oliver mentions in “Dance Critiques” the Feldman Model of Criticism, which uses “description, analysis, interpretation and evaluation” to formulate a critique. I noticed that Macaulay follows this format and provides for us, a perfect example of how Oliver’s suggestions can be carried out. Macaulay’s introduction paragraph includes both a general thesis and a general “movement moment” for the readers to get an idea of what the performance is like before she dives in to the rest of her review. As Oliver says, this description provides a basis for the other aspects of criticism to develop upon.
I saw in this dance review, that as a writer, you get to incorporate your own interpretation, emotions, associations and opinions on the performance because you do not have to prove a point in the critique like, for example, a persuasive essay does. This is why the thesis sentence for the introduction can also be much more much more general and simple than that of other writings.
In her next section, she moves onto giving the “who, what, where, when” of the dance. This differs from the “general structure” that Oliver provides for us to use for a review because Oliver suggests for beginner writers to include these details in the first paragraph. We can tell from Macaulay’s writing that she is more professional because she has developed her own critiquing style by the way her review varies slightly from this general structure.
Macaulay continues with explaining how “Glacier” is similar to Gerring’s past works because of the similar style that it uses and backs up this statement by further describing the dancers (addressing some by name) and the way they move with the other dancers on stage. You can tell that Macaulay has studied Gerring’s works before because she is able to point out a certain dancer (Mr. Neidenbach) within the performance and the impact he has on the work. As we move on to the end of the review, we go through her analysis and interpretation of the dance, the music used with the performance and the sequencing and placements of the dancers throughout the work. She closes off with a short evaluation of “Glacier” by stating that it “deepens and grows in texture” and that it “proves not only absorbing but also moving”.
I was honestly surprised by how closely Macaulay’s dance review followed the suggestions that Oliver gave in her “Dance Critiques” chapter. Not only did Macaulay follow the Feldman Model, but she also the “movement moment” that Oliver described. In this dance review, Macaulay recreated several scenes of the performance for the readers by using a varied choice of verbs and phrases within her “movement moment”.
I just wanted to point out that in the reading, Oliver also provided for me a new way of observing. She says that professional critics “suggest that in observing, you should start with a clean slate”. I find it a common habit for many, to enter a performance with not only prior knowledge on the creator or performers, but also with pre-conceived knowledge on how the performance will be before it is even finished. I like that she points out this action and emphasizes the fact that “premature analysis and judgment” can change our actual experience of observation because most people do not realize that their opinion of the performance has been altered.
-Winnie Yu (Blog A)
