Tag Archives: donald byrd

Byrd’s LOVE May Not be Supreme, but It is Full Spectrum

Screen Shot 2012-07-10 at 4.22.05 PM

The Spectrum Dance troupe in Love (Photo: Nate Watters)

Shadou Mintrone and Ty Alexander Cheng (Photo: Nate Watters)

Jeroboam and Vincent Michael Lopez (Photo: Nate Watters)

I was made curious by our SunBreak review of Spectrum Dance Theater‘s last show of the season, LOVE. A world premiere from choreographer Donald Byrd, the work left our critic impressed but asking, “But what had this to do with love?” As it happens, a lot. Still, after trundling down to Daniels Recital Hall for the last performance, I could understand the bewilderment. Byrd’s choreography is almost always as heady as it is kinetic, but here he’d reached new heights, and folded in a sort of muscle-memoir besides.

At a pre-performance talk, Byrd had addressed the idea that it was “all about him,” saying more or less that while he’d drawn from personal experience, it wasn’t a danse à clef–that’s just the material he had to work withWhile it does help, I think, to be familiar with Byrd’s biography in watching the piece, there other, jaw-dropping moments where the bravura physicality of Spectrum’s dancers is matched to an equally surprising conceptual pivot.

Keeping in mind, for instance, that Byrd is the bad-boy choreographer who thrust a heroin-addled Cobain jonesing for fix in an audience’s faces, it was unexpected to watch Rodin’s The Thinker appear off bias, or realize late in the evening that an allegorical Amor (in the breathtakingly limber form of Jade Solomon Curtis) had just flown in. In his Seattle Times review, Michael Upchurch describes the scene:

In the third suite, the degree of trust — a mix of abandon and utter self-control — that Jade Solomon Curtis displays in her fellow dancers is awing. With their help, she’s caught, propelled, flung, inverted and sent soaring, occupying the air as if it’s her natural element.

Byrd’s polysemous choreography embraces both a loveliness that catches in your throat, and supports a colder-eyed analysis; City Arts‘ Rachel Gallaher noted the way Curtis is “tossed, supported, lifted up and passed between the men in the company—perhaps a comment on male-controlled society or relationships….” Perhaps. If that is Amor up there, you’re also watching men in her thrall. Many things are true of this scene.

Poetry is thought by some a series of weak-minded, airy effusions, and bad poetry certainly can be. But the task of, say, a metaphysical poet is far too specific for someone with a feeble mental grip on the yoke they’re using to bind two things not normally bound. In the mind, they want to spring apart, back to their usual categorical associations.

In dance, similarly, Byrd is something of a metaphysical choreographer. Here we see Amor, but the metaphor is applied to the mechanics of movement: The dancers are, of necessity, as rapt as someone in love, focused intently on every move Curtis makes, every breath, even, that she takes. They have to be–otherwise she’d fall. Byrd’s choreography frequently uses the real risks of dance (falls, injury, missteps, awkward catches) to communicate an emotional reality, one that operates as a field you’ve unwittingly stepped into. So the risks of the dancers rhyme with those of the lovers.

In this way, Byrd can have his choreographic cake, and eat it, too: His vocabulary of abstract movement impresses with its internal coherence. Words don’t, descriptively, capture what’s going on, any more than “red and purple paint splatter” gives you an idea of what seeing a Pollock is like. But nonetheless you see things emerge between the dancers, the gestures they trade and react to. Whoever Ty Alexander Cheng and Shadou Mintrone are in this piece, it’s not because either has a name, or can easily be given a label, but you’re invested in their danced relationship and its discontinuities.

If there’s a narrative thread to LOVE, I think it’s in its furious attempt to make art from love, and more specifically, from love that’s gone missing. Set to Benjamin Britten’s three Cello Suites, played with an almost inhuman dynamic variety by Wendy Sutter, the work begins with the soulful Vincent Michael Lopez stepping into it–stepping through his clasped hands, a move he’ll repeat at the finish.

He’s the Stephen Hero of LOVE, someone whom we see formed both by his own relationships and by the ones he simply witnesses (Byrd has Lopez at one point run across the stage, staring into faces as if he’s trying to discern which is “the one” for him). He’s torn between a woman and a man with daimonic presence. Lopez all but shakes in his presence; Jeroboam Bozeman picks him up like a toy, arranges him into shapes, is maternally tender with a head on his breast. It’s a passionate meeting of minds (Byrd has the dancers touch foreheads repeatedly, as a kiss, as a benediction, as an epiphany that catapults one away). Lopez’s character flees, but his heart is clearly restless.

I can’t shake the feeling that it is not coincidence that people say they see more of Merce Cunningham’s choreographic influence in this work. In the mid-section of the evening-length dance, Byrd interpolates a Mercian twitching that would also suggest, having seen his Cobain, drug addiction–which also makes it, in this context, Byrdian. It’s in this part that the relational world blooms across the two bare stages, everyone partnering up, whether in ballroom dance attitudes (Cheng, Shadou) or sweaty beddings (Kate Monthy, Donald Jones, Jr.) or perhaps misplaced infatuations (Bozeman, Amber Nicole Mayberry). Feet are stamped. By the end, two of the women have seem to have had enough, and embrace each other.

It’s striking to me that the last cello suite quotes from the Russian Orthodox Hymn for the Dead. It’s here that Amor appears, transcendent, but also vanishes, and in her wake, so does Bozeman. Lopez, bereft, retraces his steps from the opening. Daniels Hall used to be a church, and I watched the dance take place beneath the nave, stained glass in the dome glowing with sunset. With the hymn in my ears, I found it impossible not to think, again, of Cunningham’s death in 2009. In love, you’re out on a sea of emotion; when someone dies, it’s suddenly a ship in a bottle. How could that immense experience fit into time, have an end?

I take Byrd’s cue not to read LOVE as autobiography, but as a story about the kind of titanic love that, if you are blessed and cursed in equal measure, comes along just once in a life. And leaves, even years later, with as great an impact as it arrived.

What’s Love Got to Do with Spectrum Dance’s LOVE?

Spectrum Dance Theater’s LOVE (Photo: Nate Watters)

How would you describe love? Some ideas might include perhaps a yearning for close companionship, an irresistible attraction, tenderness, touching, feeling, warmth, affection, closeness, sharing, embraces and kisses.

Looking for these in Donald Byrd’s new work, Love, in performance this and next weekend at Daniels Hall, I saw some, usually in fleeting moments and a few longer, such as the sequence with five couples attached mouth to mouth but without apparent warmth. Indeed the only facial expressions of warmth I saw came from the eloquent dancer Jereboam Bozeman, the tenderness in a head dropping on a partner’s shoulder, a brief embrace, an occasional caress.

Mostly, it’s a work of non-stop movement for first one dancer, then two, then in varied groupings of up to the entire complement of eleven dancers on two connected square stages. One is slightly higher than the other, with most of the church pews pushed aside in what used to be the Methodist Church at Fifth and Marion. Pews for the audience ranged around three sides of one square, but it was possible to see every dancer from anywhere.

The men were in white stretch briefs and sometimes an open longsleeved white shirt which obscured lines and seemed to get in the way; the women in one- or two-piece swimsuits or long shifts and at the end, incongruous long, thin tutu skirts which bunched up, also all white.

The work was mostly about superb athletes in abstract movement, dancers in their fluidity and the way one movement flowed into the next, at times almost reaching pure acrobatics with many leg lifts and somersaults. At others, the movement verged on contortionism, saved by the extraordinary smoothness, apparent ease and beautiful control displayed by all the dancers and epitomized by Vincent Michael Lopez and Ty Alexander Cheng.

In the third section, six men lifted Jade Solomon Curtis high overhead, twisting, turning, swooping, and arching her in a myriad shapes, the most absorbing sequence of the performance. Had she not been so strong and so flexible, and had the supporters’ hands not all been in the right place at the right time, some moves could have been seen as downright dangerous in terms of breaking her back.

But what had this to do with love?

Similarly, Benjamin Britten’s solo Cello Suites Nos. 1-3 were music for Love, played live by Denise Djokic. She draws a warm resonant sound from her instrument and gave a fine performance. However, the dance seemed to have no connection to the music and vice versa.

Donald Byrd on the Miraculous Mandarin in All of Us

Donald Jones, Jr., and Jade Curtis (Photo: Nate Watters)

In previewing Spectrum Dance Theater’s upcoming, free-to-the-public presentations of The Miraculous Mandarin, by Béla Bartók, I discovered that the Mandarin in question was going to be danced by Donald Jones, Jr., and got in touch with Donald Byrd to find out if he meant anything by that. It’s better to ask, with Byrd, because he tends to provoke both intentionally and unintentionally, as audiences at the 5th Avenue Theatre’s Oklahoma! discovered recently.

There, the casting of a black actor as Jud (Kyle Scatliffe) raised eyebrows all over town. At a TEDxTacoma talk afterward, Byrd spent some time unpacking that reaction, beginning with the basic assumption that everyone in Oklahoma was white. (In the early 20th century, black settlers streamed into the Oklahoma and Indian Territories–the territories weren’t combined to form a state until 1907 but it was still better than Kansas. There were even discussions about whether the new state would be majority black. The musical is set in 1906, the last year of Territoryhood.)

For The Miraculous Mandarin, Byrd insisted, it’s just a case of casting the right person for the role. “It’s mostly not done with an actual Chinese person, anyway,” he told me on the phone. “It’s more about it [the role] being coded for ‘outsider’ or ‘Other.’ He’s just different. Something else,”–besides skin color–“will bring his otherness out.” You’ll have to go see to find out what that is.

Jones will play opposite the equally striking dancer Jade Curtis; because both are black, that frees Byrd up to explore more than differences in skin hue. The Mandarin, he said, is “a man of means, entering a shadowy world. He’s not part of her reality,” referring to Curtis’s character, who is used as sexual window-dressing by robbers. It’s as much about the entrances and exits created and denied by class, as it is about the treatment of a foreigner, argued Byrd, noting that the Mandarin of Bartók’s era would still have been a moneyed, powerful man, if exotic to Europeans.

That said, you will still get Mandarin Chinese–Byrd intends to include a prologue and epilogue spoken in a dialect of Mandarin, and chortled when I asked if it would be translated. (No chance.) I think it’s fair to say that Byrd likes to complicate the apparently simple, to set ideas and perceptions caroming off each other. By frustrating the easy, direct conclusion, he fosters the oblique association, usually a series of them.

When he sets something like the Miraculous Mandarin in Chinatown’s Hing Hay Park, he’s not conflating historical bits and artistic pieces into an amalgamated Chinese identity (speaking of coded “outsiderliness,” Hungarian Bartók would have been accent-on-the-Eastern European), but keeping alive salient, sometimes uncomfortable differences. All of it is charged by the limits of the artistic frame; qui est in, et qui est out. At Hing Hay Park, the framing device is a literal window frame, the audience outside looking in.

“It’s a little like Rear Window,” explained Byrd, referring to the Hitchcock film that made voyeurism as American as spied-on apple pie. “What are you seeing, what are you missing? Can you believe it?”

All shows begin at 8 p.m., over two weekends: May 17-19 and May 24-26. While the show is free, you probably want to get a ticket in advance, to reserve your seat.

Giving It Away With Spectrum’s Miraculous Mandarin in the ID

Donald Jones, Jr., and Jade Curtis (Photo: Nate Watters)

Have you ever been tempted to take the leap into contemporary dance, but thought at the last moment, Wait, this costs money? Then do we have six free performances for you, featuring one of the Pacific Northwest’s most viscerally exciting and intellectually daring dance troupes.

Spectrum Dance Theater is taking The Miraculous Mandarin, composer Bela Bartok’s one-act ballet about sex and the Mandarin, to Hing Hay Park (“the park for pleasurable gatherings”) in Chinatown. That’s two blocks east of the International District light rail station, if you prefer to arrive in style.

All shows begin at 8 p.m., over two weekends: May 17-19 and May 24-26. While the show is free, you probably want to get a ticket in advance, to reserve your seat. Byrd and Spectrum are recreating on the site the setting of Bartok’s Mandarin, a seedy room in a red-light district in which a girl dances in a window, to entice passersby inside.

The audience will watch the proceedings inside the historic Bush Hotel from Hing Hay Park, as if they (or you, if you get your ticket in time) are unwilling to pay to go inside, which, since the show is free, is technically true. The main thing is, seating will be limited. And actually, you don’t want to go inside because that’s when the drug addicts in the story will try to roll you.

Bartok’s oft-banned version, grotesquing the European’s worst nightmare (a depraved and likely inscrutable Chinese man coming on to a white woman), gets a twist in Byrd’s telling, where the Mandarin is black. I wouldn’t put it past provocateur Byrd to be making a comment on minority tensions between blacks and Asians, but it could just as well be a gesture of outsiderly solidarity. Byrd does not shy away from violence and adult sexual themes, either, so be warned–when they call it “theatrical pulp fiction,” that’s not just marketing copy.

Hing Hay Park (Photo: Gabriel Bienczycki)

PS: There’s also a “Miraculous Mandarin: Behind the scenes historic tour” on Saturday, May 19, at 6 p.m. Meet up at the Wing Luke Museum/Freeman Hotel at 710 South King Street. Tickets are $12.95, and again, there’s limited capacity, so register at Spectrum in advance.

Spectrum Dance Theater is partnering with the Wing Luke Museum to give audience members a chance to tour the Freeman Hotel in the West Kong Yick Building, a historic tenement in the neighborhood, in the context of The Miraculous Mandarin. This building was a refuge and home for many transient and marginal communities in Seattle. Elements of the neighborhood history are implied in the story of The Miraculous Mandarin, and Spectrum is proud to use this opportunity to tell the stories of the area.

Spectrum Dance Presents Petruchska as a Surreal Erotic Carnival

IMG_0389
Petruchska-FRONT

Spectrum's outdoor carnival stage (Photo: MvB)

Spectrum dancers Vincent Michael Lopez, Donald Jones, Jr., Shadou Mintrone, and Amber Nicole Mayberry (Photo: Gabriel Bienczycki)

You have one last weekend to visit what feels like an instance of “On the Boards East,” as Spectrum Dance Theater presents choreographer Donald Byrd’s revisioning of his Petruchska (at SDT’s Lake Washington studio April 20 to 22; tickets: $25/$20 students). In fact, why not double down? At the actual On the Boards this weekend, you can see Kyle Abraham’s “Live! The Realest MC,” which also draws on puppet-based themes to delineate human experience.

Byrd’s Petruchska-this-time is as much art installation and “happening” as it is dance. The inimitable Byrd tricks you into taking your place, that, too late, you determine is a dunk tank’s seat, over a pool of eerie, erotic thrashings. There’s the pitch! Down you go, metaphorically.

It is emphatically “not for children,” though the evening begins innocently enough. You’re greeted by a backyard carnival–tickets a buck a pop–with ring tosses, popcorn, and Dante’s Inferno Dogs. It takes a few minutes–it feels at first like a modest fundraising opportunity–before you realize you’ve stepped into the fair indicated as opening Stravinsky’s original ballet. You can’t undo it; gone is the fourth wall. As you hand over your ticket, you accept a measure of culpability.

As Byrd blogged earlier, he’s become interested in stage directing his choreographic works, and for Petruchska, with the aid of a cavalcade of design talent (Greg Ashworth, video; Doris Black, costumes; Rico Chiarelli, lighting; Scott Colburn, sound; Matthew Richter, scenic; Isaac Waring, the carnival), he’s created three stages: the outdoor carnival, the usual dance studio upstairs, and a “surveillance room” on the main floor, that you move between on cue.

Donald Jones, Jr., in full huckster mode, appears first as the Charlatan, the puppet master/adult revue manager, exhorting the crowd to pay up to see “what’s inside,” offering a free look at some of his delightful ladies. Nothing quite goes right for him throughout the course of the evening: acts cancel, puppets misbehave (and so did a costume element on opening night, but he managed it one-footed). There’s a moment where he’s surrounded by dancers, they’re waist-bent as if in homage, petals to his stamen, and Jones grins broadly at all assembled–it’s epic in its falsity.

His private show is something less than promised, as well. When the “life-sized” puppets come to life, it’s as misshapen members of an asylum, moaning and muttering; most of this puppet troupe (Jeroboam Bozeman, Derek Crescenti, Jovian Fry, Amber Nicole Mayberry, Shadou Mintrone, Kate Monthy, Briley Neughbauer) are hung from straps, while the drama between Petruchska (Vincent Michael Lopez), Columbine (Jade Solomon Curtis), and the Moor (Ty Alexander Cheng) plays itself out.

You find yourself watching Byrd’s puppet choreography with amazement–how alien it seems, the dancers mimicking string pulls at wrist, elbow, knee. The strange, knees-out hop is spot on; they levitate. You can spot when one or two forget and move from their core.

It probably helps to know that, for Stravinsky, Petruchska turns to Columbine as a distracting relief from his puppet-istential angst. This isn’t that kind of love story, though it’s touching, even so. Lopez is terrific at conveying in vital pantomime the volatile twitchiness of the unloved, not quite sure how to ask for such a thing. Lopez is compressed, then startlingly grasping.

Curtis’s Columbine is, bluntly, hot–if you care to admit your thing for animate(d) puppets. These attractions are a two-edged wooden sword, though, as Petruchska discovers when Columbine is responsive to the Moor’s more predatory advances as well. To creep you out further, Byrd has the Moor-Columbine assignation play out on video, though you can hear the dancers pant, tumble, and grunt in the next room.

It’s a disquieting, voyeuristic glimpse of athletically rough sex, meant to put you in mind, I think, of internet fare and the misogynistic socioeconomic puppetry involved, as much as this particular love triangle. If you continue to dive down in search of signifiers, I’m not sure there’s a bottom. But that intrusion of disjunctive, live sound reminds you of the humanity of the performers, their vulnerability, even as Cheng, on all fours, springs at the bed; even as Curtis alternately tames and succumbs.

Petruchska cannot, of course, handle the Moor’s manhandling of Columbine; he attacks, to the Charlatan’s sputtering chagrin. You are led outside, where the action extends beyond the raised stage on the beach, to Spectrum’s roof–joggers on the beach crane their necks at this Fellini-esque irruption. So do you. Everything seems to be in play, and you’re without a safe word. Alive, dead, Petruchska shakes his fists at the Charlatan’s attempt to dehumanize him. But who did the Charlatan do that for? For you. Your amusement, your entertainment.

I more or less fled the scene.

For a Weekend, Chop Shop Makes Bellevue a Modern Dance Destination

AdamBarruchDance
Advance (track)
Ellie2012
NWDP

Adam Barruch Dance (Photo: Nan Melville)

BodyVox in Advance (Photo: Mitchell Rose)

Ellie Sandstrom (Photo: Rex Tranter)

Northwest Dance Project (Photo: Blaine Truitt Covert)

AdamBarruchDance thumbnail
Advance (track) thumbnail
Ellie2012 thumbnail
NWDP thumbnail

Eva Stone, of the Stone Dance Collective, has been putting on the Chop Shop: Bodies of Work dance festival for five years now. Besides its overstuffed programs–this year’s included twelve works–the festival also sponsors master classes and lectures by the participating artistic directors/choreographers, and free community outreach programs.

The festival works best as a showcase for modern dance, since it’s more of a glimpse of a choreographer’s work. Stone means to stir up curiosity about what you see from the many choreographers and companies involved. Last year, she gave an interview with our peripatetic At-Large Editor Jeremy Barker:

“The whole purpose of the festival is, I want everyone to love this art form as much as I do,” Stone told me. “It’s, you know…constantly fighting against people going home, turning on something electronic, and finding that satisfaction there. And I’m guilty, I do that too. But to have that live experience, to experience that as a human being, watching other human beings, that creates something.”

“And then to walk out and it’s gone,” she said with a grin. “That’s the great thing about this art form–it doesn’t exist. We work and work and present and then it’s gone. We have nothing to hold on to. And that thrills me.”

It must also be thrilling for Stone to look out from the Meydenbauer stage at a full house, as she did last Saturday night. For the audience’s modern dance fans, I suspect, part of the fun is in discovering new faces. I found an early favorite in Adam Barruch Dance, whose fast, fluid Folie à deux  (danced by Barruch and Chelsea Bonosky) was plainspoken enough to incorporate a post-argument fetal curl, along with some flat-on-the-back inventiveness. Here they are in another piece they’ve posted online:

DanceNOW @ Joe’s Pub 2011 from Adam Barruch on Vimeo.

Another standout new to me was Bellingham Repertory Dance. “Politics” was an excerpt from Politics, Religion, Sex, and featured the ensemble dancing to “Texas Star,” from Square Dance Hootenanny. If the style was narrative dance–dancers in suits doing back-slapping politicking, facing off, and punching each other in the gut–the dyspeptic tone was completely contemporary, and the sheer precision of the group’s movement was remarkable.

Portland’s BodyVox joined the program via video, with Advance and Deere John (which you can stream here). Advance is as much a feat of editing as it is dance: In two minutes, a pair of dancers, filmed from behind as if moving along a magic people-mover strip, end up performing in 50 different locations (including below the Viaduct). It’s jaunty as hell. Deere John features a dancer infatuated with an earth-moving machine with a scoop bucket, and the contrast in tonnage provides endless humor. The dancer approaches by petit pas; the machine, bucket hoisted, rattles forward on its tracks. Rotating on its base, the machine assists the dancer clinging to its bucket in grand leaps.

Vancouver’s MOVE: the company presented an excerpt from their Allemande, set to Bach; they were one of the few companies to present an actual leap (and a number of polished pirouettes), in their work featuring solos, pas de deux, and a trio. Jason Ohlberg’s Sweetness of leaving was too pretty an accompaniment to “Calling All Angels,” with the little kicks, curved arms, and rocking motions all painting a picture of what’s already in the song. Stone’s own group presented Piñata, which showed off her talented young troupe, and Stone’s intriguing arrangement of them into three lines that then alternated in height (e.g., standing – kneeling – standing), creating interesting depth of field variations.

SANDSTROMMOVEMENT‘s the Series For (For One / For Two) opened with Ellie Sandstrom demonstrating how you own a stage (when works are coming fast and furious, as they can during a festival, it’s notable when an artist stamps their own sense of time), before moving on to a shadow-backed ensemble with Hannah Crowley. Khambatta Dance Company’s meditative Centrifugal Force combined yogic poses with circular ensemble dances.

It’s always interesting to see what you fail to respond to, which in my case were Northwest Dance Project‘s A Short History of Walking and Penny Hutchinson‘s Alien Dances. NDP featured Patrick Kilbane and Elijah Labay in black martial-arts pantaloons, performing martial arts-tinged moves with intensity, separately and occasionally intruding into each other space, as a tachycardic drum machine played. Alien Dances, oddly, didn’t offer anything that alien, just a likable young trio gamboling about the stage. I couldn’t sustain my initial interest.

I suppose if you invite provocateur Donald Byrd to your festival you have to be prepared for the possibility that he may show up and present an expository talk at your evening of dance. The “little” Jerusalem Dance followed fresh from another visit to the city; Byrd appeared, hands up, outstretched, as if at synagogue, listening to a found chorus in the air (music by Emmanuel Witzthum), then walked over to a podium to present a meta-talk about the need to pay attention to the dance of narratives in the Middle East, not just who is pro and who is con. Slapping his hands and circling became a postscript to his more personal reaction to arrival in Jerusalem, the discomfiture and critical alienation of the traveler. Another lesson in owning the stage.