Art Scatter looks back on a dance with a kick

Filed under:Bob Hicks, Dance, General — posted by Bob Hicks on October 3, 2008 @ 9:20 am

I thought I’d said everything I was going to say about last week’s White Bird performance of Alonzo King’s LINES Ballet and the Shaolin Monks in this preview piece that ran in The Oregonian. But one friend who was impatient with the show asked me via email what I’d thought. And another friend said she couldn’t take time to post her own response, but if I posted something she’d respond in the comments.

So forgive the lateness of it all, but here we go:

“What did you think of the show?” my friend Sharon wrote. “I thought it could have benefited from some major editing. King does some really creative collaborations, but I found that the monks were much more interesting than the dancers (and he’s got a company of truly beautiful dancers … they just weren’t given a lot to work with). I was hoping for more integration, more story — rather than the flat cultural juxtoposition we saw. Which isn’t to say that I didn’t like what I saw, I just wanted more and I wanted it more tightly woven.”

Another friend quoted her friend on the show, succinctly: “The trouble was, you couldn’t take your eyes off the monks.”

My own view is that something pretty interesting was going on here, and as much as I enjoyed it, I would have enjoyed it more if it had been a half-hour shorter: It was too much of a good thing. Every time I’ve seen LINES I’ve liked the work but felt it really needed to be cut.

I also agree there was no story in this piece, which is called “Long River, High Sky” — I don’t think King does stories. He sets up communities instead, so you get the possibility of stories coming out of it. But he’s not going to do it himself, the way that Balanchine or Tudor or Robbins or Ailey or Bill T. Jones would. I think of King as an explorer, interested in the borders between cultures. Especially in this sort of piece — like his “Moroccan Project” and his “People of the Forest,” a collaboration with a troupe of pygmy dancers and musicians from central Africa — his two cultures meet, mingle, try to find a way to mesh.

That’s what he’s interested in. How, given this meeting of cultures, will a new culture evolve? It’s dance as anthropology — not in the ordinarily conceived sense of “authentic” ethnic dance, but in that awkward, exciting, exploratory moment when two unknowns cross paths and begin to investigate each other. If, in “Long River, High Sky,” we find the kung-fu monks more compelling (and I also find a couple of King’s dancers magnetic on stage), perhaps it’s because we’re less familiar with what they do. And, yes, the monks’ aesthetic of combat is pretty cool stuff to watch.

Anyone else want to kick in on this discussion?

2 comments »

  1. Oh sure, I’ll comment since I said I would. I don’t disagree with anything said above, by either Bob or Sharon, though I think I take issue with the reference to Balanchine as someone who wanted to tell stories–he certainly created some story ballets, including his version of the Nutcracker, but in his case, to paraphrase the bible, the music is made flesh, not the words that tell a story.

    What I think about King is this: he’s an extremely intelligent choreographer and very much interested in movement explorations of a variety of cultures and then braiding their characteristic ways of moving as dancer-athletes, or as in the case of the Pygmies, tribal dance with his own western, classically based vocabulary. But this is very difficult to do — we’ll see a quite different attempt at the same kind of thing when OBT dances Val Caniparoli’s Lambarena in the spring–Caniparoli’s piece is for ballet dancers who have been given some training in African tribal movement and they’re accompanied by Bach. I don’t think this entirely works either, but the piece is very popular and in the repertoires of many ballet companies.

    That’s a digression — I think King needs to work on his vocabulary, diversify it more — in this piece we saw the same thing over and over again and it occurs to me that while the monks performed the same moves fairly repititiously as well, the dynamics changed a lot, they had a capacity for stillness juxtaposed with explosiveness that I did not see echoed in King’s choreography. He has wonderful dancers in that company and I think they’re capable of much more than they’re asked to do. The show was indeed too long and so is this rambling comment, so I’ll stop here, except to say I thought some of the music was just awful, the kind of thing you hear over the loudspeakers when you have lunch at the Bush Garden.

    Comment by Martha Ullman West — October 3, 2008 @ 11:18 am

  2. I’ve got to second your comment about the music, Martha. It was terrible. I’m glad to hear that I was not the only one who felt this way. Throughout the show, in some odd sort of way, the music caused me to feel mildly stressed out.

    Comment by Sharon — October 6, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)