In our short discussions on the performances we’ve seen thus far, we have talked a lot about interpreting and understanding a dance/performance, often without looking at other aspects of it. We seek to find meaning but without first understanding how to get to that point, skipping over the details of a piece. On the contrary, Alastair Macaulay focuses his review of New York City Ballet’s Swan Lake on the dancers themselves and the way they bring their character to life–or don’t–and how that is facilitated by the music, costuming, choreography, etc. Though Oliver stresses that “description should make up the main substance” (89), Macaulay sees no need to focus on describing the dance itself since Swan Lake is such a widely known ballet/story; thus, he makes his review different and interesting by discussing the other important, but often forgotten, pieces of the performance.

Macaulay does take time to describe and analyze several of the dancers’ performance, mainly that of Sara Mearns. His focus is on her unique ability to take the well-known dance to new heights through her emotional performance, which brings a deeper level of complexity than is usually portrayed by the Odette/Odile roles. In his review, Macaulay uses a healthy mix of “strong and varied action verbs,” “interesting adjectives,” and other forms of various other word choices. He describes how Mearns interprets the role with “completely authoritative individuality,” with “voluptuous passion” as Odette and “enigmatic, even…[brilliant]” as Odile. She dances as though “riding the full power of a wave.” He continues his focus on her dancing and what she brings to the character by pointing out how though she “stumbled” towards the end of Odile’s fouettes, she remained driven by the emotion and drama of Swan Lake.
Macaulay similarly describes the performances of the other dancers: Tyler Angle is “elegant,…gallant, relatively lightweight and without…specificity;” Brittany Pollack, Tiler Peck, and Joaquin de Luz “found a constant supply of wit and color” and looked “distinguished;” and the corps de ballet “danced with power and passion.”

Macaulay’s main point, however, is in the contrast between the dancing and the orchestration/costumes/colors of the ballet. His review highlights his ability to truly analyze a dance; as Oliver notes, “a critic must be able to make comparisons, determine structures, or place things in context,” (81) all of which Macaulay does. He talks about how the conductor, Daniel Capps, would sometimes slow down the tempo to accommodate the dancer, turning the great orchestration “clumsy.” He then goes on to criticize how the performance, meant to honor the late Albert Evans, only seemed to cast black males in the role of Rotbart. He uses this criticism to transition into his criticism of Peter Martins’ production and of the designs of the dance itself. He calls the costumes “silly,” the color schemes terrible in both concept and execution, and even goes so far as to call a costume “grotesque.” He does then take note of some of what NYCB does well, especially including multiple principals in slightly smaller roles and including many debuts.

Using these facts and observations, Macaulay analyzes the performance as a whole, informing the reader and potential viewers with more than just a review and glimpse at the characters and dancers in the ballet but also at the behind-the-scenes happenings. Unfortunately, Macaulay was unimpressed by Martins’ production and choices, and though he enjoyed the dancers’ performances, he found that NYCB’s Swan Lake is “less than the sum of its parts.”

Jessica Sun

New York City Ballet is back at it again with their 2015 production of Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. Alastair Macaulay, of New York Times, has chosen to stray from the dry critique of this frequently performed piece. He focuses on comparing and contrasting this production with those of other companies as well as commenting on the changes made in casting throughout his review. The focus of the review has been spread among a selection of aspects from the performance including, different dancers, costumes, music and solos. This correlates somewhat with Oliver’s writing in which she states, “Should the show consist of one full-length work, find three or four specific dance sections to critique” (76). Macaulay differs slightly as he focuses on different aspects of the performance and dancers while touching on certain choreography rather than focusing on the plot and rewriting what many others before him have said on the choreography and style of Swan Lake. Macaulay uses a variety of intense and descriptive adjectives and verbs to help guide the reader through pieces of the performance as if they were sitting next to him in the cool dark theatre. He speaks about NYCB’s choices in casting and adds his ideas about what he believed worked and what he did not enjoy watching. Macaulay employs some first person narrative to provide anecdotal evidence to his majorly third person narrative. His use of the first person voice is sparse and deliberate, confirming Oliver’s belief that authors should not “mix [the tenses] without cause” (91). This review on Swan Lake contained many extreme statements which at first surprised me. Macaulay described one solo as “grotesque” as well as the costumes’ color schemes as ” terrible in conception and execution”. After further investigation that these types of phrases were custom for the author and had previously been under fire five years ago because of a comment that he made about a female dancer’s weight.

I enjoyed Alastair Macaulay’s Review of NYCB’s Swan Lake. While he was critical of many aspects of the production, he did highlight certain dancers and gave credit where credit was due. Because of his vast knowledge of dance and his history as a dance critic, his reviews focus on much more than the dance itself. Because of this, the review may seem distant to readers who do not understand the plotline of Swan Lake. The review encapsulated many of Wendy Oliver’s ideas on writing for dance to create a sense of authority and provide the reader with information on the production and the ideas of the author.

-Eli McClain

In the New York Times review “In a New Work, Camille A. Brown Plays with Empowerment”, Gia Kourlas writes on the choreographer Camille A. Brown’s latest dance “Black Girl: Linguistic Play”. Kourlas begins with a thesis stating that Brown’s dance is not “the least bit diminutive.” She goes on to give an overview of the theme of the work which is the black female identity, and the medium through which it was expressed, the playground. Following this brief introduction, Kourlas briefly mentions the highlights of each section of the performance as well as the shifts of tone throughout.

In Wendy Oliver’s book Writing About Dance, she states that the model for dance criticism starts with description then goes to analysis, then interpretation, and finally evaluation. Additionally, the thesis sentence may be something that “offers an interesting insight and refers to the concert as a whole.” Kourlas beings her critique with a thesis that fulfills this in part by offering a general insight of the dance as not diminutive. Then, following Oliver’s format, the review has a brief description of the dance as a whole. However, considering the following critiques of each individual part, it seems like there should have been a longer description of the overall performance. All that is mentioned is the use of “a multilevel stage of platforms and mirrors” as well as the use of “games of childhood.” For a description, an overview of the performance would have been good.

The following paragraphs introduced different sections of the performance, along with brief analysis of each. However, there was not much of interpretation by Kourlas beside that of the tone shifts. In addition, the evaluation is practically non-existent in this review aside from that which is stated in the thesis. Kourlas does not explicitly follow through on her initial statement, although she does somewhat back it up through her descriptions of the parts of the performance. Throughout the review, third person voice is used which creates the atmosphere of a more professional critique and also slightly removes the critic from the action. Overall, Kourlas’ review on Brown’s dance is an effective and concise one.

The review I read was on Bruno Isakovic’s Disclosure, written by Siobhan Burke. The review concerns a piece in which the intimacy of the human individual is represented and celebrated, both through literal exposure (the nude) and figurative exposure (the disclosure of secrets).

In this review, Wendy Oliver’s breakdown of the criticism process is quite evident. The review opens with a description of the performance, which is the foundation for the analysis, interpretation, and evaluation which follow afterwards. The description gives a generalized idea of what the performance showed, as recommended by Oliver’s text. Burke’s subsequent analysis focuses on the combination of word, music and movement to create the piece as a whole and how it compares to the more movement driven performance, Denuded, which is a previous work by Isakovic. Putting these pieces together, Burke creates an interpretation in which the performers interact to share their most hidden secrets, both of their body and their mind, which creates a sense of intimacy that is hard to find and establish in our culture. Finally, Burke’s evaluation consists of his criticism of the piece’s shallow and incomplete confessional (a weakness), but not without praising the honesty of the work (a strength).

-Jaimee :^)

The following is my review of Gia Kourlas’ review of ‘Tape’, as based on the concepts in the Oliver reading. 

In their review of “Tape”, Gia Kourlas makes their opinion on the performance very clear, and supports it with details of the performance. In this sense, their thesis is very obviously presented. However, their definition is lacking, and does not describe the performance well to give the reader a sense of the action, nor do they give the context or background in the which this performance is meant to be in. At the very least, they have the basic information: location, time, choreographer, etc. Kourlas uses metaphors and similes well, and sticks with a single tense and voice that that is able to display their visible affront to the reader. But while they make their evaluation of “Tape” come across very clearly, the reader is unable to grasp the meaning or an image of the performance in Kourlas’ review. Moreover, Kourlas does not provide an interpretation of “Tape”, being too busy disparaging it. By Oliver’s standards, this review is somewhat incomplete. Ultimately Kourlas is able to communicate their thesis and evaluation, but is unable to clearly convey the action or meaning behind the performance.

-Jessica Ng

Brian Seibert’s review, “The Duet as a Physical Sculpture, Unburdened by Noise or Clothing,” focuses on Molly Lieber and Eleanor Smith’s dance performance Rude World. Throughout the review, Seibert highlights how the dancers, although seemingly “dancing only for each other” in a “self-contained world,” obviously made it for “the external gaze.” Although the dance between the partners seems private, their movements are often a showcase for the audience. This point is clear throughout all the paragraphs, which is a technique Wendy Oliver emphasizes, stating that “all writing on a specific dance” must be “connected to your thesis statement for that dance” (77).

Although Seibert does not supply the reader with enough description to actually envision the dance itself, he does supply snippets of description, which is effective in this case because, as Oliver points out, “generalized description of a…section of a dance is appropriate for capturing its flavor” (79). He is able to capture “the flavor” of the dance through use of specific words and phrases such as “sensual,” “tactile,” and “interplay of weight, muscular tension and release.” He also makes effective use of language through similes such as “they are like tangled strands of seaweed caught up in gently churning waves,” which according to Oliver, helps to “communicate the impact of the work in an engaging way” (90).

Furthermore, Seibert goes on to provide his own interpretation, exemplifying Oliver’s technique: “forming a plausible hypothesis about the meaning of a dance and then backing it up” (85). Although he does not provide interpretations as frequently as descriptions, he picks a specific part to interpret the dance as a whole. He states that the performance was “sensual, tactile, but the tone…much less erotic than exposed and undefended” and goes on to defend his view by describing the “prone Ms. Lieber [pulling] her knees under her and [arching] her back.”

Along with this interpretation, Siebert concludes the review with an evaluation. Overall, he describes the dance as “too haphazard and insufficiently thought through,” and that “the view is beautiful, but it isn’t quite enough.” However, unlike Oliver description of evaluation as building “on description, analysis, and interpretations to make arguments” regarding the successes and failures of a performance, Seibert fails to build up to his evaluation. His descriptions and interpretations fail to lead up to his final conclusion–he does not use them to indicate why he thought that the dance was not enough.

I read the New York Times article “New York City Ballet Gambles on Unknown Artists” after reading Oliver’s chapter on critiquing dance articles. Much of Oliver’s writing talks about how critics review dance performances, this piece focused primarily on the two newest choreographer’s commissioned by the New York City ballet.

Several of her points such as the necessity for evaluations built on objective analysis regardless of personal preference do still apply to this article. Both choreographers’ previous experience and bodies of work are described without judgement or prejudice. Though they grew up in different countries, their trajectories crossed paths as they both competed for a mentor/protege experience with Alexei Ratmansky. Myles Thatcher beat out Robert Binet for the program and has a larger body of choreography work experience supporting him already. Though they were both hired to create work for the same ballet this differentiation between the artists could invite the possibility that a critic could show preference to Mr. Thatcher. His impartial tone throughout was something Oliver emphasized in her writing.

Another thing Oliver wrote about was the necessity of context. This was a quintessential focus for the article, especially since it is being highlighted that these are not well known choreographers. They are not famous or world renowned so having contextual background focusing on their dance history, previous work, training, and style intent are important so that those who read the article can begin to learn about Thatcher and Binet. Each artist has his own set of paragraphs that reveal his start in dance, where and when he entered the professional world of dance, and some of their personal quotations. Hearing about their respective backgrounds allows readers to be more comfortable and subconsciously more trusting of both artists. Getting to hear their voice- not just a critique of their work gives the audience a good foundation of knowledge for future reference. Now if I were to go to their performances or read a critique of their pieces in the future I have significant context as to their influences and how they got to where they are now.

I really enjoyed the article I read and almost wish that we were going to the New York City ballet as a result of reading this review. Both ballet’s will premiere tomorrow at the City Ballet’s fall gala and I would be interested to see if New York Times will do a follow up review of the artists finished and performed products.

Aliyah Meyer

Gia Kourlas’ review of “Tape” by Kenneth Kvarnstrom was less praise and more dissatisfaction for the dance piece. Kourlas comments on the theme of the tape in the piece, as a grid and series squares on the ground or that the live (not taped!) music played for the dancers. There are moments in the review in which one could mistake the comments for positive remarks and a sense of enjoyment. However, any such remarks are quickly followed by an off handed putdown. The dance is described as looking like a fabric freshener commerical, the cast being talented but ultimately no more remarkable than any other dancer or even the floor, and facets of the performance are referred to as “worse intrusions”. Even the term whimsy is being used with a sense of mockery; the musician playing instruments through the dancers is whimsical, a dancer telling a cake recipie is whimsical, an non-sequiter about almonds being a nut, the title of the review itself- it’s all so whimsical!
Now, the review does not follow much of what Wendy Oliver describes in her writing. There is very little semblance of an actual description of the performance in the review. As the reader, I had little to no idea of what this dance must have been like to watch except for that it was not very impressive. In addition to that, there is hardly any analysis or interpretation of “Tape” in the review. All that this review consisted of was the author’s evaluation of the performance, a less than pleased evaluation that stood on the borderline of mocking and insulting, and a garden variety of general observations about the performance. This review was enough to make me not want to see “Tape”, not because of scathing remarks, but because I learned hardly anything about it and so it leaves me with a feeling of apathy… perhaps, however, that is what Kourlas intended?

Mary Yanez

The dance review, ” ‘Zero One’ Plays With Difference at Danspace” by Siobhan Burke focuses on how the dance piece revolves around the concept of two’s. Burke mentions how the performance essentially draws from the very different backgrounds of the two dancers. One being trained in Japanese Butoh, and the other in European contemporary dance, Burke states that “Ms. Yokoshi…seems interested in both reconciling and teasing out differences, finding the two-ness in their oneness, and vice versa.” I personally found it most interesting how the choreographer, Yasuko Yokoshi, chose the identical Fukuoka twins to be the two performers in the dance. Having two visually indistinguishable dancers makes the concept of two’s and the differences among the two dance styles all the more ironic.

Furthermore, I was able to make note of how Burke utilized some of the critiquing techniques mentioned in Wendy Oliver’s “Writing About Dance”. Oliver emphasizes how the goal of a dance critic should be to write as vividly as possible in order to try to “re-create some aspects of the performance for the reader”. It is evident that Burke attempts to evoke the performance in the reader’s mind when she says “one dancer, stiffened, collapses in the other’s arms, her bones knocking against the wooden floor”. Aside from the duality exhibited in this piece, Burke makes note of the haunting film excerpts displayed in the background of the dance. The excerpts are from Ms. Yokoshi’s film “Hangman Takuzo” and they exhibit an old “Japanese performance artist who hangs himself — safely — each day in his garden”. It is noticeable that the film being played in the background influenced Burke’s description of the performance when she says ” their movement, much like the dangling Hangman Tazuko and the ghostly Ms. Kawamura in the film, hovers delicately between being here and being gone”. Although Burke does a great job of describing the piece, I feel that her critique was incomplete. I learned from Oliver that criticism includes “description, analysis, interpretation, and evaluation, which are equally applicable to observing and writing about dance”. After reading the review I felt that her critique lacked thorough analysis and interpretation. I felt like I didn’t get a sense of what she exactly thought of the dance piece or what she might’ve thought it represented or meant.

Ariella Caminero

Both Matisse’s Woman with a Hat and Mark Rothko’s No. 61 eschew realistic imagery and coloring to use colors to express emotions more purely. Matisse rejected realistic coloring, but Rothko rejected concrete objects altogether to express emotions through blocks of pure color. When looking at No. 61, there is little that the viewer can do except ponder the meaning of the colors alone, stripped of all context. In this way, Rothko stands among the Abstract Expressionists who used pure, simple forms to communicate ideas. Woman with a Hat, on the other hand, uses its bold colors to enhance the expressiveness of its subject. Here, the colors, while being very eye-catching, serve to complement the woman rather than overshadow her. This stands in stark contrast to No. 61, where the colors are the primary- indeed, the only – thing for the viewer.