Dance

CounterPulse

by  • 

CounterPulse 80 Turk St. San Francisco, CA
New works by Jim Cave, Nol Simonse and Christy Funsch
September 8-10, 2022

What (and how) does an audience see, learn, accept, know, question … enjoy?

Two performance events marked the events at Counterpulse on Saturday, September 9 when I attended the performance. First on the evening was “Untitled (death pod”.

The dramatic piece was performed by Jim Cave and Nol Simonse with music by Emma Tome. The word “drama” is significant in this event. Each moment held suspense; each action was deliberate, carefully ‘choreographed’; each moment developed the inevitability of the next moment into the “death pod.” The work was fine drama.

Cave enters fully dressed and slowly strips himself of outer garments. He approaches a ‘burial space”, as a bird like figure (Simonse) approaches and gently executes the death ritual. Cave speaks throughout the event. The process is inevitable and fascinating but each step is clear. We are left knowing what has occurred yet curious to know more. “Untitled” is a satisfying, contained work that the audience accepted and enjoyed.

“kid subjunctive” is an event in which “performance, conversation, movement and sound generation ‘ is by Christy Funsch, Emily Hansel, Zoe Huey, Peiling Kai, Jenna Marie and Phoenicia Pettyjohn. For this event only five of the six performers were present. Other credits went to Sharon DeRyan for “early investigation” and Lou Reed, “Metal Machine Music” (used without permission.) Text was by the performers.

A microphone, “downstage left” was used to transmit sound and words. Alas for this listener the sounds nor words were not always clear.

The dancers, in various ‘everyday’ outfits, shorts, pants, T-shirts move beautifully alone and sometimes with two or three others. Funsch started with the group, left and returned. The dancers moved across and through the space using moderately easy effort, although there were sometimes dynamic changes. As the piece finished, the dancers grouped around the microphone and then completed the work, each alone.

This audience member, although trained to watch movement, dance and choreography found it difficult to create a ‘collected’ set of images as the piece proceeded. Each solo dance, duet and trio was well performed although they spread throughout the space.

One had to choose where to focus, so no ‘collective’ impact was established. My old dance brain kept saying “Increase excitement by diminishing space” and although curtains were drawn to ‘contain’ the space, it continued to be a challenge to “see.”

Funsch’s work is challenging in the freedom it provides for the dancers, the space and the “score”, but in this event, especially following the dramatic piece that preceded it, “kid subjunctive” might have come first on the program, used more space limitations and helped audience focus on the brilliant dance moves performed.

Commentary, Government

How Come …

by  • 

How come the USSecretService is reported to be hiring independent counsel? Whose money are they using? Are they using public funds to pay private lawyers? Or, are unknown and hidden persons or corporations backing this? Can’t be Trump, because it has been reported that he never pays his bills.

Dance, Performance

Amy Seiwert: “Sketch 12”

by  • 

Cowell Theater, Fort Mason: San Francisco
July 16, 2022 7:30 PM

Three works were presented in the “Imagery” evening,

First was Seiwert’s “Tides” with music by Ezio Boss. Seiwert’s notes tell us “..after 12 years of experimenting, the unexpected can still happen.” Yet the work was familiar: eight dancers, four women and four men in various groupings and duets. The center image was that of a woman being lifted by the group. Such lifts and many entrances and exits, as often seen in ballet works, continued throughout “Tides”. Perhaps that was the sustaining idea; the continual flow of movement.

Natasha Adorlee’s “Liminal Space” (in collaboration with the dancers) to a mix of music by Vivaldi, evoked Adorlee’s “most impactful moment of my life, …the loss of my father.” The work is very emotionally moving, combining a wide range of dance locomotion and many small intimate moments of touch. To a text by the choreographer, the dancers respond: touching face, limbs and one another in what she says is ”a love letter to embracing and fitting for each moment of being alive.” The work holds together with those sections.

Last on the program was Joshua L. Peugh’s “Kink” to music by Orville Peck. Peugh quotes Stephen King’s “On Writing”: “Don’t bother to read between the lines, and don’t look for a through-line. There are no lines-only snapshots, most out of focus.” The dancers share intimate moments of touching, reaching, holding and lifting. It is primarily a dance for the men in the company. The women are background.

Two dancers are outstanding, although all are competent and highly skilled. Anthony Cannarella has an unusual ability to bring lyricism and accuracy to all his performs. His focus and animation draws attention. Fortunately he danced several solos and duets.

Isaac Bates-Vinueza is also an outstanding dancer. Other in the company are: Brandon Alexander, Matisse D’Aloisio, Joseph A. Hernandez, Jenna Marie, Kelsey McFalls and Isabella Velasquez. All are exciting to watch.

Costumes are by Susan Roemer: Lighting by Brian Jones. Films by Ben Estabrook.

Missing from the credits is the wonderful woman, Pilar Marsh who did the signing for songs and narration. She is as expressive and dramatic in her communication as any of the dancers and deserves program recognition and a moment to join the company and choreographers in curtain calls. Sitting near her, downstage right and in the house, Marsh was a joy to watch.

Three notes:

  1. Choreography: Dance has changed in the last half-century that I’ve watched. Choreography, perhaps because it followed music, was thematically organized. Groups were organized to follow a rhythmic line and dance in unison. Now, dancers enter and leave the stage alone, or in small groups and interact seemingly randomly. It is challenging to watch, but untrained audiences often cannot follow the design.
  2. Footwear: Seiwert’s women dancers wore toe shoes, yet being ‘on toe’ seemed unimportant (in the classic sense of “petite pas”.) Other dancers wore flat dance shoes. But the ‘new look’ is dance socks, many colors, many styles. The bottom of the socks have tread which allows ‘no slip’ and safe, fast travel. Bare feet, once characteristic of “modern dance” are gone.
  3. Presentation: Each dance was preceded by a short film during which choreographic ideas and work process was explained and presented. For this reviewer, it was unnecessary. Although the choreographers were eager to speak about their work, I believe  (and many agreed) to “let the dances speak for themselves.”