Alex, Julia, and I saw Lar Lubovitch’s dance company back in February (yes, February) at McCaw Hall. I was pretty excited to see the show because Lar Lubovitch is one of Doug Varone’s many mentors. If you don’t know who Doug Varone is, shame on you. Google him, go to his website, watch the videos because you will be blown away… So, I was really excited to see the show because I wanted to know who and what Doug Varone was influenced by. But little did I know, the movement became more and more generic… (until the third piece).
As wonderful as it was to see professional dancers onstage again (I think the last professional performance I watched was when I lived in California). And as wonderful as it was to share the experience with other dancers… I must say I was thoroughly disappointed. Lubovitch’s movement vocabulary was not clear to me at all. When I watch any sort of dance performance, one of the ways I connect to the piece, to the dancers, to the choreography, is the choreographer’s movement vocabulary: a pattern of movements that becomes the basis of an artist’s work. You watch choreography like Doug Varone and there is definitely a set movement vocabulary. Thrown limbs, loose energy, great use of medium and high levels, pedestrian-like movement. When I was watching Lubovitch’s movement, there was no consistent energy that was used, some choppy partnerwork, and at one point the dancers were doing waltz turns across the floor. I remember Alex saying, “That’s just what Lar Lubovitch does.” That statement didn’t make any sense to me. The first two pieces of the performance (“Concerto Six Twenty-Two” and “Jangle”) looked exactly the same to me. Each piece began in a circle, the music became entrancing with its similar tempos and instrumentation. If anything the dancers’ costumes were different and there were a lot of flexed feet in “Jangle.” I just feel like I was watching a choreographer who was still trying to find his/her movement vocabulary by just making piece after piece after piece. Each generic and boring.
I will have to testament to “Dvorak Serenade,” however. By this time in the show, I was expecting another circle. I had become restless and tired… But the third piece really blew me away (in relation to the prior two). What I loved about the movement in the third piece was how organic and less “showy” it was. It almost felt like more of a collaboration with Lubovitch and his dancers becase the movement was so different compared to the “fake” waltz turns in the other two. It was based on a duet, a male and female dancer. It was funny because the female dancer was one of the dancers I felt was weak when watched in the ensemble. For me, I love watching the human behind the dancer. This piece really conveyed the “human-ness” that I’ve come to love when watching dance performances. The focus in this performance was much more internal than external (external focus has that kind of “showy” feel to it), I felt like the dancers were really listening to each other’s bodies. And although the big “ta da” behind the sic maybe had nothing to do with the theme of the piece, I think the show as a whole needed that big “ta da” to compensate for the beginning of the show.
So… all in all… CREATE A MOVEMENT VOCABULARY. I’m the kind of person (and probably not the only one) who wants to have a good idea about what I’m about to see in a dance show. That’s why folks watch Balanchine right?
Circles anyone?
