The dancers are self-conscious at the beginning and not in a good way.
Schtick without authenticity. Is that ok if it's intentional? how do you know if it's intentional?
They can absorb the style with a certain aplomb but lack artistry.
I feel I am never watching what I wish I was watching....like I have missed something somewhere else on stage that was more entertaining or interesting.
One dancer seems to be flirting with my friend who came with me. Not really taking it seriously?
Now the costumes appear to me to be a disguise for the emptiness of the work.
I am not sure the dancers are convinced of what they've been asked to do.
Are the gestures supposed to be real or accessed?
Why something if nothing is your motivation?
Why something if nothing?
Re: Program notes: I don't care, just do.
Is pathetic supposed to be endearing or clever?
Again, I understand it's supposed to be about "X" but what is the stance, opinion, thesis about X? Otherwise it seems just like practising cursive writing. R, R, R, R....all across a page of an hour.
Where is the art? Is no art the point? Then why should I care? Nothing is posited.
There is no performance. No performance can be a kind of performance, but this feels just empty. I might as well not be here.
Our brains are more sophisticated than this work seems to imply. We can absorb concept X with more complex material. We are not zombies. If we were we would already have stormed the stage in search of brains-for-dinner.
Now this show feels like an insider joke that none of us get to be in on. Like we're not cool enough to even guess how sophisticated the joke is. But I don't think it's particularly sophisticated, even though the performance is quite impressive. I'm starting to resent the "cool" factor that gets applied to the marketing of different shows, I am assuming not necessarily generated by the creators or performers. The cool factor is often empty, inauthentic. True coolness is inspired not cultivated.
One of the best moments of this show is when a raccoon walked by the open window near my seat.
I like how this is defying extremity of line but refreshes the classical form at the same time. However the dancers don't seem to grasp this and are not sending it far enough out to us. Lacking a fluid connection that the choreography seems to inherently possess. Juxtapositions of neo and pure classicism is satisfying.
Under-rehearsed, but they seem to love moving this way.
After watching this, I can't wait to go into the studio tomorrow.
Very slammy and rhythmically the same all the way through. No emotional level can come through, though the dancers and choreographer/choreography seem to want it.
This is the show that other other show wanted to be but couldn't find it's way too.
The creative process revealed without insulting its audience. Pedestrian movement is always stylized, made more than mundane. The impact of simple movement smartly put together.
Baby is not so much into the music of this work.
I smell feet that have been in sneakers too long, corn chips and lemon pledge. Weird.
One dancer's body is too soft for the choreography. It lacks impetus.
What is the root of the sensuality?
Somehow the upper arms of the dancers are inarticulate. Just the upper arms.
Unexpected how the ideas of the choreographer turned into choreography, which is so pleasurable.
The performances are pretty sincere if a little shallow. They are genuine in what they are. You can't get mad at a piece for being what it is.
A bit ridiculous. Sloppy. No relationship to music, so why is the music there? Why not silence?Spacing bad. Costuming lazy. Lacks substance behind gestures. The edge and approach towards it is faked. Movements are heavy and though fast, lethargic, somehow. Good ideas but choreography is not very useful in articulating those ideas. Why break the fourth wall just once and have nothing change in the arc of the work after broken?
The man next to me looks at his watch. No context. No set-up. Why the reactions between dancers? They don't seem connected enough to elicit responses from each other.
Voyeurism is so 1990s.
Why do the legs go up? Do we ever know? What is the relationship between dancer and audience? Nothing ingratiating about it, I am somehow not on her side. Is the substance merely strength? That might be enough.
This one makes me think how clever a designer has to be to light a black costume in a black box theatre so well.
Hallucinations. Ghosts occupy other places on stage, where dancers are not. My eyes do strange things in response. The movement is so classically modern but then planed, cut off, compelling. If you're gonna run, run like that. Leaves you wanting more but still unsure of what you've just seen.
RULES FOR CONTEMPORARY DANCE AFTER THIS SEASON:
No more babies or children in sound scores.
No costuming by American Apparel.
No program notes if you have no opinion about what you state in your program notes.
If you're repeating yourself ask yourself why. If you can't answer don't do it.
No smug dancing.
No smug choreography.
If someone bumps into you and apologizes don't be a bitch about it.
More dance in Toronto, please.
0 comments:
Post a Comment