Another Opening - another show

Matthew Neff | Jan 24, 2008 | there are 0 comments

Frances Chiaverini and Matthew Branham perform in "Connoisseurs of Chaos" on Jan 21, 2008. Photographer: Julieta Cervantes/Joyce Theatre via Bloomberg News

So on tuesday night I was invited to go see the premiere of Armitage Gone! Dance's "Connoisseurs Of Chaos" at the Joyce Theatre. "Connoisseurs" is the final installment of The Dream Trilogy that began in 2004. Armitage Gone! Dance is a company of six dancers under the direction of former Cunningham dancer Karole Armitage.

So I get to my seat and take off my coat. I pull out my little notepad to take notes Having not seen the first two installments of the trilogy I went in with an open mind. The piece which ran over an hour with no breaks. Starting with all of the company on stage in a cluster the choreography began with the conventional interpretation of chaos as being random twitching and spastic improvised movement. Immediately I was removed from being a member of the fourth wall to realizing that the Joyce Theater's seats aren't the most comfortable when you aren't glued to the action on stage. After the first few minutes of the performance I decided taking notes clearly wasn't necessary. I will just say that Armitage Gone! Dance is not my cup of tea. I found the choreography as a whole to be quite unoriginal. Throwing together movement that i have seen over and over and over again the whole piece was lacking anything that struck me as having a unique point of view.

I am a huge fan of ballet. I enjoy watching classical Balanchine, Robbins or Petipa choreography. Of the current choreographers in the ballet genre Duato and Kylian will never let me down. All of these choreographers were/are exceptional at thinking outside the box while still retaining two keys aspects of the art of choreography. 1- Creating phrases that collectively establish major motifs and 2- Creating an atmosphere that draws in the audience by depicting some sort of narrative. The work should always speak for itself. While I was in college in 1842, we had to give speeches before our choreography was shown. I said it then and I will say it now- If you have to explain your piece before it is shown then you haven't done a good job at achieving the point of choreography. Dance is a visual art form. The movement should speak for itself.

So why am I going off with that tangent?

In the program Karole Armitage uses two pages to explain the whole purpose of the trilogy. As an audience member I want to be entertained. I really don't want to have to read someone's proposal for a grant. Let the work speak for itself. Picasso, Pollock and Agnes DeMille never presented an article articulating how their work should be perceived. Why does Armitage?

Moving past the choreography I did find two dancers in the company to be quite entertaining. Matthew Branham and Frances Chiaverini performed a pas de deux that made me sit up a little bit more in my seat. Both of these dancers were quite proficient in their technique. It was nice to see them perform with such freedom while maintaining their classical technique. They were definitely a highlight. The whole company executed the piece with a blank expression. Chaos is blank? Hmmm.

My advice for Karole Armitage is the same advice I have for people when they go to pack for their first tour. Pack everything in you want to bring. Then the next day take half of it out.

Ok you might think I am just being a bitch that hates everything. Read these fine quotes.

The New York Times said this; "the choreography comes undone on its own. Ms. Armitage increasingly repeats herself, with diminishing returns, and the work's power comes too heavily from the music. You are left with the resonant memory of earlier sections, and those are strong enough to leave you wanting more"

Bloomberg.com said "The piece superficially displays a preoccupation with George Balanchine's ``Agon'' and ``Episodes,'' even to the belted leotards Peter Speliopoulos has given the dancers. Yet it lacks the very basic qualities, beginning with incisive structure, that distinguish those works of genius. Armitage, both onstage and off, maintains the attitude that she's doing something new. I suspect she thinks she's going beyond Balanchine."

After reading those reviews I felt like I wasn't an outsider that night in the theater.