ARTSCAPE

Gabriel Masson Dance, San Diego State University, October 6th, 2006

October 14th, 2006

I sometimes think Twyla Tharp has ruined an entire generation of choreographers.

On Friday, October 6th I attended “Gabriel Masson Dance”, presented by San Diego State University School of Music and Dance. My comments here will focus on the choreography, not the choreographer.

It’s important to make this clear distinction. As human beings it’s so easy to leap directly from “I failed” to “I am a failure”. It’s very difficult for us to distinguish what we did from who we are. So I want to be very clear — what I have to say is about the choreography. Only the choreography.

I believe choreography is one of the most elusive art forms, one of the most challenging in which to create something vital, true, and real. Think about it. As dancers, we spend years training in particular dance styles and methods. Those styles, characteristic movements, and language are deeply rooted in our bodies, in our muscle memories. When a dancer trained in Graham technique makes his or her own choreography, it’s so natural for those dances to look like Graham copies. This isn’t intentional, no one wants to be derivative. But those steps, sequences, and combinations are what that body and mind knows. They are what’s available in the moment.

And this is extremely hard to change. It’s very difficult for a choreographer to find his own voice, to create a brand new language of expression.

I assert that a certain style has cast this exact thrall over the last 25 to 30 years of new choreography. And, for me, this is not a good thing. My particular problem with this style is that, for me, much of the movements are simply not organic. Not truthful.

OK, yes, there’s a lot of frantic eye-catching movement and much of it is pretty bravura. Dancers dancing these sequences have terrific control and strength. It’s inspiring. But ultimately, it’s not that interesting because it’s merely kinetic. Not much else.

And, here comes the rant. All that touching — touching the arm and lingering, touching the face, touching the head. Placing a hand on another’s head and pushing it down. Using a hand to turn another’s face. None of this is organic. In my opinion, I’ve never seen any such movement that had any sense of choreographic flow. To me, it seems the choreographer just throws this stuff in because he’s seen it on stage before. Probably, he or she has done this stuff in class.

And the glances. If a dancer is going to look at another on stage, this suggests a human interaction. Since this is the case, the dancer had better have training as an actor. The dancer had better have something going on in his head beyond “I’m supposed to look at her now”. Otherwise, it’s just another false movement, another false moment.

Meaningless gestures. Rolling on the floor. Sitting down on the floor or getting up from the floor without any clear intention, without any choreographic flow or relation to any other preceding or following movement.

Choreography is not merely stringing a sequence of steps and movements together. And yet, we see a great deal of this over too many years.

So ends the rant.

The empowering questions are, what is the choreographer’s vision, where is the invention, where is the value and meaning for the viewer. As an audience member, I want to transcend. I want to learn something new or see something in a new way, I want to be a witness to the humanity of myself and others.

Putting stuff on a stage is a big responsibility.

To be complete, there were a number of transcendent moments in the “Gabriel Masson Dance” concert. In “LOVE: STORY” there were several stunning snapshots involving the four dancers — stop-motion complicated sculptures of great beauty. And, the use of props was ingenious. A bunch of roses was employed metaphorically and allegorically, and also, brilliantly, as compositional elements. You’d be following a sequence of movement, and suddenly notice a bunch or roses had created a two-dimensional room or an arrow or dividing line between the players in the love story. For me, these moments revealed the true voice of the choreographer.

The dancers were terrific. Jillian Chu, Elizabeth Swallow, Sarah Ebert, grace shinhae jun, Veronica Martin-Lamm, Victor Alonso, Eric Geiger, and Bradley R. Lundberg all had great energy and terrific commitment to what they were doing. From a dancer’s point-of-view, all the allegro sequences demanded strength and virtuosity, and everyone performed admirably. Great attention, great focus, stopping on a dime, throwing their bodies around with abandon, having fun doing it. This was all wonderful.

But, for me, I wanted much more. I wanted to see what the dancers could do. This style of dancing has no jumps to speak of, no turns, no extension, no rhythm. Yes, there were many complicated lifts, many that were inventive and breathtaking, and yet that’s just not enough. It’s not dancing.

I’m certainly willing to consider that I just don’t understand this style, and I’m definitely willing to admit that it doesn’t match with my worldview of what dance wants to be. And given that, “Gabriel Masson Dance” was a very good presentation of this form of expression. I definitely appreciate the dedication, hard work, and many long hours involved to bring such an evening of dance to the public. And, I’m grateful for having been able to be present.

And yet, I say, blaze new trails. Be more inventive. Let dancers dance.

Bookmark It