Gia Kourlas’ dance review “Total Recall: Reconstructing Memory, for Better or Worse” was one that reflected the general guidelines in Wendy Oliver’s chapter on Dance Critiques while also showcasing a sense of personal expression through the review itself. The review  included the recommended parts such as the date and location of the performance, and elements of the Feldman Model of Criticism (description, analysis, interpretation, evaluation). Oliver emphasizes that the description the writer gives is imperative to the rest of the piece in that it sets the foundation-it serves as a quasi-performance that hopefully aids the reader in understanding the writer’s message.

In the dance review, I noticed that there was not a clear distinction between the aspects of Feldman’s model. Oliver did mention that the style of the writing could be largely determined by the author. This review was a clear example. The description, while vivid and  specific, was merged with evaluation, analysis, and interpretation all at once. For example, Kourlas says

“They ducked under the fabric — Mr. Zullo’s visual design obscured bodies in the most irritating way — and gathered beneath a spotlight. Shifting from side to side, dancers pressed their palms together, raised their arms overhead and smacked their upper backs. This random act of self-flagellation came up several times throughout the piece, as well as forward falls that ended in stumbles, and heavy, two-footed landings from jumps. It felt as if we were being force-fed, and the food was emphatic movement.”

Here there is a description of the visual setting (the fabric and concealment of the performers). Yet this description is coupled with an interpretation (assuming the smacking of backs was “random”), analysis (the use of metaphor in saying that “the food was emphatic movement”), and evaluation (“in the most irritating way. . . it felt as if we were being force-fed”). In using this method of critique, the writer seems to be sending a message that at the very least, one’s perception of the piece is hard to separate from one’s own understanding of the piece.

-Prima (Blog B)

“Oozing Sludge, Gregor, Is Never a Good Sign” is Gia Kourlas’s review of the Arthur Pita’s dance-theatre adaptation of Franz Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis”, which is being performed at the Joyce Theatre.

Kourlas begins her article with a descriptive lead, peaking the interest of the reader with a suspenseful and eerie vision of the stage before the dance began. The author also explains the basic plot of the play in the subsequent paragraph.

Next, the author begins to analyze the piece, noting its impressive visual design — especially the moving wall of Simon Daw’s set, — and the time which is devoted to Gregor before he mutated from a salesman to an insect.

In her analysis of the play, Gia Kouras also evaluates the play, criticizing the abruptness of Gregor’s transformation and the yoga-like moves of the insect Gregor. However, she also points out the difficulty faced by a ballet dancer in playing the role of Gregor.

Offering little in terms of interpretation, Kouras does weave something of the sort into her critique, most noticeably in her line: “When it works, the struggle is internal: confusion, yearning and despondency are nakedly revealed in his forlorn eyes.

Although she didn’t follow the four essentials of writing a dance review perfectly, it is clear that Gia Kouras, in her critique for “The Metamorphosis”, applied the Feldman model of description, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation, as described in Wendy Oliver’s Writing about Dance.

-John Wetmore, Blog A

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)

Wendy Oliver places heavy emphasis upon the four cornerstones of the Feldman model of dance criticism–description, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation. Although the merits of such a model are clear, particularly for students who have little-to-no experience critiquing dance, the model does tend to introduce a rigidity to a critique that may be better off without it. Just as with dance, or any other art form, it is not always beneficial to approach the work with a specific form or system in mind. Sometimes it is best to just let the ideas flow and exist as they are.

This was the conclusion I came to as I read Brian Seibert’s review of Megan V. Sprenger’s ‘Flutter’. It seemed to be very loosely written and not once did I get the sense that Seibert had been following any set guidelines as he wrote. The flow of ideas was very organic and natural, largely focusing on the individual performers and the nature of their interactions. What struck me upon finishing his critique–and also what led me to make the observations I did about the potential harmfulness of structure–was that it left me wanting more–but in an effective way. Oliver writes in her introduction to the ‘Dance Critiques’ chapter that professional critics for newspapers “often write about current performances in order to describe and evaluate them for potential ticket buyers” (67). It was thus that I found Seibert’s review to be very successful for the simple fact that it made me want to find out more about this performance–perhaps even by way of going out and buying a ticket to see it for myself.

Seibert incorporates just the right amount and type of description that Oliver stresses in her discussion of dance critiquing. Oliver suggests the use of strong and varied action verbs, colorful adjectives and adverbs, and the active voice (79). Seibert does a great job in describing the appearances and personalities of the four performers on stage, bringing each of them to life through his words and vivid language. There is a sense of constant motion that is communicated through the writing. A portion of the review that I particularly liked used active voice to create powerful imagery: “Two people build some pattern in common until one of them breaks off. Two people almost touch but keep a tiny distance, or they do touch and the touching turns violent. Someone comes away smug, someone comes away hurt.” Seibert even goes so far as to include a description of the Chocolate Factory theatre in which ‘Flutter’ was performed, noting how its starkness was softened by the presence of a white panel and wide bands of white gauze.

Yet despite all this wonderful, strong imagery, there is a sense of disparity that is taken away from reading the review. I couldn’t quite put together all these descriptive elements in my mind to form one cohesive image. I had no clear sense of what the performance was intended to portray, nor did Seibert give much by way of interpretation in his review. At first, I thought this was a fault on his part because based on Feldman’s model, interpretation is a key component to any successful dance critique. But with more thought I realized that perhaps this was intentional. For one thing, judging from the way Seibert entitled his review, I could imagine that maybe the piece itself didn’t really have a story or message per se, but was more about creating a specific atmosphere through the titular charged interactions. Then I considered the possibility that Seibert did not wish his readers to watch this performance with any preconceived notions in mind.

Oliver warns against having too many thoughts about a piece while in the middle of watching it, as these thoughts may distract from fully engaging and absorbing the piece as it is happening. What Seibert has done is give us enough detail and imagery to have a rough sense of what we will encounter, but does not interpret the piece or try to ascribe any certain meaning to it aside from what he sees. He includes just enough evaluation at the end so that we can say his piece is a critique, but not to the point where it seems that he is discouraging his readers from seeing the performance. I really enjoyed reading Seibert’s review because even without following the guidelines of Feldman’s model, he still managed to produce a well-written and insightful piece of writing about dance. Although I agree with the majority of points that Oliver makes in her writing, I was pleased to find that Seibert’s review was still effective despite not following “the rules”.

–Norine Chan (Blog A)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/arts/dance/liz-gerring-dance-offers-mirrorlike-illusions-in-glacier.html?ref=dance

Alastair Macaulay follows Wendy Oliver’s chosen model — the Feldman model — of dance criticism to the T.

He first starts his write-up with general background of the piece.  He gives the time (Tuesday, the week of September 20, 2013), the place (the Alexander Kasser Theater at Montclair State University), the length (60 minutes), and the choreographer’s name (Liz Gerring).  He starts off exactly how Oliver suggests any dance critique should start.

In the first paragraph, he describes the dance movements as “hurl[ling],” “skim[ming],” and “bobbing.”  Oliver states, on page 79 to, “use strong and varied action words…interesting adjectives…colorful adverbs,” and so on.  Macaulay did just that.

Also in his first paragraph, he states his thesis, expressing that the “work has wit… [and that] its moods change like the weather… carry[ing] aspects of poetry and excitement.”  Oliver requires a thesis statement for the piece as a whole, rather than just sweeping statements about specific parts.

Oliver likes the use of similes and metaphors.  Macaulay, early on in his critique, compares the background of the piece to being “like a blank cinema screen.”  He also says the dancing is “as if breaking down boundaries and worlds.”  He uses metaphors and similes to describe what he is seeing, thus creating a visual for his readers.

He then, in his third paragraph introduces the musician (Michael J. Schumacher), who influenced the dance piece.  Macaulay describes the sound created and comments, “the overlap of different instruments suggests not musical harmony but a soundscape of wide multiplicity.”  His innate ability to put into words what sounded so beautiful is amazing.  Although I didn’t personally hear the music, I am already in awe of what it must have sounded like.

In his next paragraph, he brings in outside knowledge and opinion.  He singles out one of the dancers (Benjamin Asriel) and describes how he has taken on a new role that is different from other pieces Macaulay has seen him in.  This is impressive to me because it shows he really knows his stuff.  He isn’t just reading other reviews and comparing what he reads.  He is commenting on plays he has already seen that featured the same actor.

I noticed that he often uses the first person.  Oliver says that it is ok to use the first person or the third person, but that she particularly thinks the first person tense is more “conversational because it brings the reader into direct verbal contact with the writer” (91).

He later goes into detail about one aspect of the dance: the entrances and exits.  He uses the first person to explain why he thinks some of the movements are funny.  He also says that the movements are “both delivered coolly but excitingly.”  He expresses his opinion throughout the paper, but not in a judgmental way, as Oliver stresses should be reserved to the end of the critique.  He brings in personality and character without forcing the reader to think one way or another about the piece yet.

He concludes with the analysis.  He claims that the dance “changes from a seemingly analytical study into a diverse world.”  That the quality of the dance “adds fascination” and that the piece is “moving.”  This is where he finally adds his interpretation and judgment.  He backs up his claim by telling us that he “scrutinize[ed] the movement.”  This is his personal opinion, and following Oliver’s checklist, his opinion is explained.

I have read his critique a number of times now to check for spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes and I have yet to find any.  His sentences all vary in length and many provide vivid imagery, as mentioned and exampled above.  His paper is very interesting to read because I can feel the excitement he put into writing it.

Kyle Leighton

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/arts/dance/liz-gerring-dance-offers-mirrorlike-illusions-in-glacier.html?ref=dance&_r=0

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)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/arts/dance/lyon-opera-ballet-presents-limbs-theorem.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=dance&adxnnlx=1379975918-eDxMH84oYHVTiga6dM8CXA

I read “The Dawn of a World, Dreamlike Yet Chaotic” by Roslyn Sulcas, which was a review of William Forsythe’s “Limb’s Theorem.”  The review was published on The New York Times website, and related to Wendy Oliver’s reading in multiple ways.

Sulcas begins her review with a vivid description of the performance’s start, just as Oliver explained should be done.  As a critic, Sulcas does a phenomenal job of painting a picture of the stage in the reader’s head.  This is a strong foundation for the rest of her review, because it gives her audience a powerful image of the work that she will be critiquing.  She goes on to describe the next few events of the performance- what Oliver called a “movement moment.”  In the reading, Oliver made it clear that these movement moments are vital to the success of writing about dance, and Sulcas made sure to include one early on in her review.

It is also clear that Sulcas has done extensive research about the choreographer, William Forsythe and she shares all relevant background information with her readers.  The reading explained that this is crucial to supporting any conclusions that a critic may draw about the performance.  Themes or trends that the choreographer has followed in the past can reveal a lot about what their intentions were with any other performance that they have created.

Finally, Sulcas does a thorough job of analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating the dance throughout her review.  She discusses that a “motif of rearrangement permeates the work, with conventional balletic shapes reorganized into new forms that ignore the logic that usually determines the planes and impulses of classical dance,” which is just one example of how she analyzes and finds deeper meaning about what Forsythe truly intended with his work.  Sulcas even uses similes such as “a rope pulses across the floor like an EKG,” to support her assertions about the performance, thus enhancing her arguments and providing more evidence for her critique, exactly as the reading described it should be done.  Her review consistently matched the main points that Oliver’s reading explained, and I found it fascinating how accurate and relevant this critique was to the reading overall.

– Brandon Fiscina (Blog B)

At first glance, it would seem that John’s self portrait and my own do not have much in common.  I chose to draw about the things that are most important to me, while John decided to use his love of languages to communicate with the class.  However, there were some major similarities between our self portraits that become obvious when you start to think about the reasons why we chose to use these specific strategies.

First of all, I found it interesting that we both spent the majority of our performances with our backs to the class, writing/drawing on the board.  To me, this shows that we like to work privately and independently, especially when we are focused on a certain task.  In addition to this, we both decided to write/draw our work right there in front of the class, as opposed to making something beforehand and then presenting it to the class in a different way.  I think this shows that John and I are both daring, yet confident in our ability to express ourselves, even when on the spot.  Once you look beyond the surface of our self portraits, it becomes clear that they share many key similarities.

There are also many obvious differences between John’s self portrait and my own.  One thing that stood out to me is that he decided to go amongst the class and interact with them by handing out papers with phrases in different languages, while I never moved from the board.  This could show that John is more willing to explore his boundaries and is more outgoing, while I choose to express myself as an individual, without interacting with others.  Another significant difference that I found was in the mediums that we chose.  John used chalk for the most part, while I chose to use markers.  In my opinion, chalk is indicative of school and teaching, while markers are more representative of playing or doodling for children.  This could show the John took this project as a more serious educational performance, while I approached it in a less formal way that allowed me to express myself in a comfortable and personal way.

Overall, I found it astonishing to view not only John’s, but all of my classmates’ self portraits.  It was a wonderful sneak peek into everyone’s personality, and it was a lot of fun to hear everyone’s opinions about each other’s performances.  Some people picked up on small details that I would have never noticed, and some that I’m sure even the performer themselves did not intend.  When comparing my own presentation to John’s, I discovered many key similarities and differences that I did not even think of when I first watched his or thought of my own.  These self portraits were an eye opening experience and I can only hope that we have more projects like this one in the future.

– Brandon Fiscina (Blog B)