When Joann Kealiinohomoku published “An Anthropologist Looks at Ballet as a Form of Ethnic Dance” over 40 years ago, it caused quite a stir in dance studies. Ballet? Ethnic? It was like someone had finally held up a mirror to white people so they could see themselves instead of assuming they were a normative non-ethnicity.

The article pushed dance scholar Dena Davida (better known in Montreal as the artistic director of Tangente) one step further, as she wondered what the ethnographic project for post-modern and contemporary dance would be. The result is now an anthology exploring the issue from a multitude of perspectives, Fields in Motion: Ethnography in the Worlds of Dance.

The irony is that, because of globalization, white people are becoming a normative non-ethnicity after all. As a consequence, the authors in Fields in Motion sometimes explain experiences that might now be familiar to most, including those who have never even attended a contemporary dance show. Not that all writers or subjects discussed are white, by any means.

In the first section, “Inventing Strategies, Models, and Methods,” authors focus on establishing their methodology. It makes one curious and it would have been interesting to discover what findings their methodology yielded. It might be the nature of the beast (in this case, anthologies), as many of the chapters are the introductions to theses. Still, it might have been better to select subsequent thesis chapters to offer readers some meat, at the risk of losing them a bit along the way.

Some authors (like Anne Cazemajou) understandably rely heavily on description, as most readers do not have access to the object of study. Less acceptable is when writers relying on introspective ethnography become unnecessarily wordy. Michèle Moss writes, “I have always been the happiest, indeed most comfortable, when inquiring with my arms and legs as they manipulate time and space.” “Dancing” would have done just as well, if not better.

In a similar vein, the second section on “Embodying Autoethnographies” is, as can be expected, the least scholarly, as writers (like Priya Thomas) get lost in novelistic descriptions that rarely engender knowledge. It is as though writers (Inka Juslin is another one) believe that, if they focus on the details, they might be able to make the reader forget about the big picture; often, there is none. Thesis statements remain hard to identify, if they are present at all.

Karen Barbour even openly states that she is not concerned with “traditional research expectations of reliability and validity,” (!) which makes it hard to take her essay seriously. Indeed, it reads like a LiveJournal entry as she recounts conversations in detail, when she could have made the same points in fewer words. She references her own writing more than anyone else’s, and it accounts for almost a third of her sources. It’s being self-referential in a way that was popular almost two decades ago. While one can easily understand the value of embodiment to dance research, it does not need to be communicated as an unedited, continuous stream of consciousness.

With the third section, “Examining Creative Processes and Pedagogies,” it finally feels like we are getting somewhere. Pamela Newell and Sylvie Fortin examine the power relationship between choreographer and dancers, and how it affects the creative process and outcome.

In what is probably the best essay in the entire book, “Black Tights and Dance Belts: Constructing a Masculine Identity in a World of Pink Tutus in Corner Brook, Newfoundland,” Candice Pike proves that one does not need to be urban to make a worthwhile contribution to knowledge. She notes how, while male is usually the unmarked gender in society, it becomes the marked one in ballet. By interviewing the men attending a ballet class in a small town in the Maritimes, Pike is able to achieve insights into why the subjects took up ballet (to fulfil their unrealized potential) and about the need to question generalizations.

In the final section, “Revealing Choreographies as Cultural and Spiritual Practices,” Emily Wright offers the most humour with her look at American Protestant dance. With just the right amount of self-consciousness, she writes, “When one hears the phrase ‘American Protestant dance,’ many things may come to mind. Or, perhaps, nothing at all.” Perhaps more naïve is her statement that “Auditions for roles in performances were competitive. This led to frustration, disappointment, and disillusionment for dancers who had a strong desire to worship God through dance but lacked the technical excellence required.” Another personal favourite is when she explains, “A more basic understanding is that a Christian dancer is a dancer who is Christian, or a Christian who dances.” Or both, Wright. Or both.

Fields in Motion: Ethnography in the Worlds of Dance
Dena Davida, editor
486 pp.
Wilfrid Laurier University Press
39.95$

They look at each other from the corner of their eye. Their bodies are stiff with self-consciousness. How to act? Better steal another glance from our neighbour to see what they’re doing. When unsure, it’s better to do the same as everybody else.

Even René Descartes thought so. Before he could even come up with his “I think, therefore I am,” he had decided that if one started with the assumption that they didn’t know anything, it was better for the time being to follow society’s rules until one did figure some truths out for themselves. The idea was exemplified by the analogy that, if one is lost in the forest, it is better to keep walking in the same direction even if one does not know where it will lead.

There is, of course, another implication: if one is going to put society’s rules into question, it might be best to keep quiet when one realizes that those rules are all bullshit. I’m paraphrasing.

Another way to put is that, if you’re the one walking being the prisoners in Plato’s cave and it’s your shadow being cast on the walls, you might not want to tell them it’s just you; human reality is even scarier to us than the monsters we’ve made up. That’s why we created monsters in the first place, so we’d never go in the forest in the first place. It’s safer to just stay at home and do the same as everyone else.

Luckily, choreographer George Stamos doesn’t seem to see it that way. In his world, it’s better to try things on for size. To him, it’s an essential part of what it means to be human. The forest is not outside of us, but within, and it extends to the edge of our skin and even into the extensions that we put upon ourselves. So put on a dress and some high heels, no matter what your sex; you might learn a thing or two about yourself and others in the process.

In Husk, everyone’s in drag from beginning to end, independently of their sex or what they’re wearing, if anything at all. It’s that, as Stamos had already touched upon in Cloak, there is no other way of being. As drag has thankfully highlighted, gender is nothing but a performance and we’re all faking it. We’re all monitoring each other and, more importantly, ourselves. When my nephew wanted a pink bedroom like Dora the Explorer, he was quickly told to get back in his gender line by his parents.

The gender performance in Husk is made so extreme that, along with the prosthetics the dancers sometimes wear, it impedes their movement and makes it awkward, much like their excessive touching does. When Rachel Harris is wearing a muscular male appendix, her movement is not as fluid as it usually is. It is not the body that she is used to. There is also something cheeky about the fake penis that dangles between her legs, as though Stamos is giving the contemporary dance audience what it wants, except not.

And sometimes it’s just what we need: someone to push us into the forest so we’ll realize that what’s scary is not what’s out there, but the beliefs that have been preventing us from going there in the first place.

Husk
February 8-10 at 8pm
Agora de la danse
www.agoradanse.com
514.525.1500
Tickets: 26$ / Students and those under 30 years old: 18$

“I am shackled by truth and beauty,” wrote poet Richard Loranger. It’s a sentence that struck actress Céline Bonnier and dancer/musician Clara Furey. It served as inspiration for their show Hello… How Are You?, currently at La Chapelle. Unfortunately though, Hello offers little of either.

In the few instances when it does work, it is specifically because it achieves a certain realness or truth, usually in spite of itself. First, they have decided to change the seating around so that the audience is facing the café-bar and the dressing rooms. So, when the two performers run from one to the other, the sound of their high heels echoes through the theatre.

Second, Bonnier delivers a monologue taken from Pierre Maheu’s Le Bonhomme… which is a documentary.  As reality television has now proven, the shit that comes out of ordinary people’s mouths is infinitely more creative than anything even the most imaginative writer could possibly come up with. In other words, people are a lot more unpredictable and fucked up than we can ever imagine. If Réjean Ducharme had written this monologue, we’d call him a genius. But, no… It was just a drunk woman in Saint-Henri going off on an unscripted rant.

Third, Furey swiftly spins her head around over an aquarium. More than any other, this scene reveals Hello’s main problem: the disjunction between where it wants to work and where it actually does. As is always the case, Furey gives it her all onstage. And yet the effect of her performance on the audience is underwhelming. However, what does grab the attention is that her long dark hair hits the light in the process: light, dark, light, dark, light, dark… We need to cling on to these few short moments, a bit of everyday poetry in the middle of so much crassness.

Fourth, the two of them put on nail polish and wave their hands back and forth so it dries faster. This simple movement is probably the most interesting in the entire show. I would have preferred to watch them do this for a full hour. At least, it would have shown dedication, clarity, commitment, and restraint. None of these qualities are to be found here.

Last, Furey throws dark clay at Bonnier. It hits her and covers the wall behind her. Again, this is not what is actually of interest here. Something good finally comes from it when Bonnier moves away and, on the wall behind her, leaves a white paper silhouette surrounded by clay. It reminds me of environmental artist Andy Goldsworthy, who sometimes likes to lie down on the pavement when it starts to rain, and then stand up to reveal the silhouette left behind by his body but for a few seconds, before the rain swallows it too. Now there’s an artist with a clear concept.

The performers list a bunch of “eyes” that advised them, but the ones they could have used are Nicolas Cantin’s. He knows how to get a lot out of little, as opposed to a little out of a lot. But, if you’re not going to put a good show together, at least you can always take your clothes off. It sells tickets.

Hello… How Are you?
October 11-15 at 8pm; October 15 at 3pm
Théâtre La Chapelle
www.lachapelle.org
514.843.7738
Tickets: 33$ / Students: 28$

Imagine you’re a wolfman. At night, you’re traveling with a pack of wolves. Then, as soon as day breaks, they end up surrounding you. No longer one of their own, you have suddenly gone from friend to prey. Their teeth could pierce through your skin just as easily as you could pierce through a body made of balloons.

Things can shift just as quickly in Clap for the Wolfman, a dance show by Shannon Gillen that the New York choreographer is presenting at the Fringe. Like night becomes day, the relationship between the five women performing can switch on a dime. Friendly one moment, they can be cold and even threatening the next.

A woman with a long braid gets down to a two-piece black spandex suit that displays her athletic body in movement. Behind her, a life-size skeleton made of balloons imitates her. Two women sitting on the edge of the stage use microphones to create amplified sounds of the dancer’s moving body as they imagine them, turning the micro intro macro. The body is fragmented by the space between balloons, parts rather than whole.

However, it is in partner work that Gillen excels. In duets, her dancers often become intertwined, forcing her to find creative solutions to the progression of their movement.

In a playful section, performers pass a microphone around and, holding different positions, articulate their body into words. Her palm open and arm straight in front of her, a woman says, “This is me dancing in the 80s. This is me showing my wedding ring. This is me when I’m surrounded by wolves.” This exercise demands from the performers an awareness of their body in its present state at the same time as they must recall a body memory that overlaps it. They must consciously observe through their body how it organizes itself in relation to different external elements.

Things don’t appear as light-hearted when a dancer hits planks of woods together. The lack of clear motivations behind her actions makes them look so senseless as to be menacing.

The lighting might be the element that speaks the most to Gillen’s talents. Often, a single spot is used to light the entire stage from the front, so that the dancers’ monster shadows become a sinister backdrop. There is a tableau during which a performer holds the spot in her lap and shakes her unzipped hoodie on both sides of the light, making the shadows flicker like a stroboscopic television left on at night. I say that such details speak of Gillen’s talents because it reflects the choreographer’s ability to do a lot with little. Clap for the Wolfman is full of ingenious finds, from its use of light and sound to its choreography.

Clap for the Wolfman
June 15 at 10pm; June 17 at 6:45pm; June 18 at 8:45pm; June 19 at 3:15pm
Tangente
www.montrealfringe.ca
514.849.FEST(3378)
Tickets: 12$

Last week, I was comparing Cindy Van Acker’s choreography to graphic design. This week, I couldn’t help but view Miguel Gutierrez’s Last Meadow through the lens of video art. It probably helps that, for this show, the New York choreographer is making extensive use of one of American cinema’s most iconic figures, James Dean.

It is as if Gutierrez had taken images from East of Eden, Rebel Without a Cause, and Giant, and reedited them using video to deconstruct them. After emptying them of much of the narrative by using repetition and distorting the dialogue, he reconstructs the moving images with an emphasis on gestures, making them tip over into dance. The process also becomes about deconstructing the myth of America itself.

While the performance is obviously a live one, Gutierrez predominantly uses coloured lighting (blue, red, purple, green, orange, pink) to flatten it into an image. It is as though he had dipped strips of films into dye to prevent any desire the viewer might have to see their image as realistic and to instead emphasize their cinematicness, their true nature as light filters and shapers.

By taking these straightforward narratives and turning them into an experimental work, Gutierrez evidently obscures their meaning and makes Last Meadow more opaque, more difficult to penetrate. This is not a bad thing. As a recent viewing of Rebel Without a Cause reminded me, while the film deserves its status as a classic, it also suffers from the same faults as many other 1950s films. That is to say that it capitalizes excessively on dialogue, the characters making abundantly clear every single one of the psychological motivations for their behaviour. While they are tormented souls, there is no mystery clouding their characters. As a result, they are prevented from ever becoming full-fledged individuals and instead emerge as the mere result of causal relationships, the fatalistic product of their environment. However, in the absence of a clear narrative, nothing is so simple in Last Meadow.

There is one more significant way in which Gutierrez tempers with his source of inspiration. While James Dean’s ambiguous sexuality has also made him a gay icon (no doubt helped by Sal Mineo’s character’s obvious crush on the star in Rebel), Gutierrez goes one step further in queering him. The role of Dean is played by Michelle Boulé, an Asian woman who won a Bessie Award for her performance. In turn, the role of Dean’s female lover is played by Tarek Halaby, a tall bearded man. As far as dance goes, he’s the one standing out, with his long straight legs that propel him into the air. For Gutierrez, who completes the love triangle in a Sal-Mineo-type character, they are not performing drag as much as acting like children playing dress up.

As the three dancers perform a series of arbitrarily codified movements of their own making while taking off their clothes, Lost Meadow suddenly gains a feeling of freedom. The weight of the past, with the endless repetition of memories, is finally lifted… just as it persists as haunting echoes. Ultimately, Last Meadow proves to be a most rewarding experience.

Last Meadow
June 9 & 10 at 8pm; June 11 at 4pm
Conservatoire d’art dramatique – Théâtre Rouge
www.fta.qc.ca
514.844.3822
Tickets: 32$ / Under 31 & over 64 years old: 26$

You can’t earnestly name a show Oh! Canada. Luckily, it’s the latest creation by The Choreographers (Audrée Juteau, Thea Patterson, Peter Trosztmer, Katie Ward) and, between the four of them, they share a great sense of humour. As one might guess, Oh! Canada is a mish-mash of Canadiana and, while the artists should be taken seriously, they prove that nationalism shouldn’t be.

From the beginning, they set the tone as they all wear cardboard masks of a blank man’s face made from fat straight black lines. It’s hard to take them seriously, though the square holes that allow them to see make the cardboard look like the goalie mask that Jason wears in Friday the 13th. Creepy. On the other hand, if you stack them up on top of one another, they turn the dancers into a totem. More appropriate for the theme at hand.

Trosztmer provides a history of Canada in a few minutes, really a string of Canadian clichés that highlights how inevitably ridiculous any attempt to offer a basis for a cohesive national identity is bond to be. It also includes a Terry Fox joke, a funny one at that, and any show that manages that feat deserves some kind of recognition.

On the dance side, the highlight is the Trosztmer-Juteau duo that capitalizes on the former’s strength and the latter’s small size. Juteau moves around Trosztmer like an orbit around a planet. This is not to say that she lets herself be dominated; she’s feisty and can definitely put up a fight. “If you touch my hat, I’ll kill you,” she tells Trosztmer, before running after him around the stage in an effort to hit him with it.

More à propos is Juteau’s short but repetitive speech about Louis Riel, the humour of which hinges on her thick French Québécois accent. “Louis Riel is a murder,” she says. Does she mean “murderer”? “Not a murder… A martyr!” The difference between the two words is less obvious than one might think. For their part, Patterson and especially Ward capitalize on their deadpan.

With so many creators, it’s not surprising that the show ends with the difficulty of making a decision as a group. Especially when suggestions range between singing a song, planting a garden, or starting a bank. And maybe that’s the point. If four people can’t agree on one thing, how can we expect 34 million Canadians to form but a single national identity?

As is often the case for dance shows that use text, the relationship between the movement (here quite earnest) and the words (tongue-in-cheek) remains obscure. Inevitably, the text appears as an attempt to popularize dance by adding a more readily “understandable” element, and this even though it doesn’t explain the dance itself. Still, The Choreographers have put together a certain crowd-pleaser.

Follow The Choreographers at www.thechoreographers.ca as I hear they will perform Oh! Canada again in September.

Have you ever wondered what Jackass would look like if it were contemporary dance instead of performance art? Me neither, yet last night I got to find out all the same. With Still Standing You, Belgian Pieter Ampe and Portuguese Guilherme Garrido have produced the kind of work that can only come from a place of deep friendship and trust. How else could a couple of straight buds hold each other’s sweaty cock?

From the beginning, they are pushing their bodies to the limit as Ampe is lying on the floor, legs straight in the air, and Garrido sits on his feet while making casual conversation with the audience. As is often the case, the job is harder for Ampe, and Guilherme likes to be a dick about it. When he moves his feet to Ampe’s hands, he then puts his own hands on Ampe’s still erect feet, then his fists, then but a finger to show how easy his end of the deal is.

They grunt like cave men as they lift and rock each other as though fucking… before the one standing up forcefully throws the other on the ground. Riding on each other’s back, they act like Godzilla destroying the helpless tiny city below them. But play, just like sex, can on a dime turn brutal. Ampe stands on Garrido’s lying body and walks on top of him by lifting him by the belt and shirt.

There is no music (except for the percussive one they create with their bodies) and all the stage lights are on for the length of the show. While for most shows it is better to hide as much as possible to stimulate the imagination, here everything must be seen. Still Standing You is not trying to be pretty or graceful. When a move threatens to become so, the men simply drop each other on the ground. It’s about making it look hard rather than easy.

Still Standing You is a mix of physical feats (how to move around one another while holding each other’s penis?), slapstick, competitive play, juvenile behaviour, male bonding, circus acts, and sadomasochism. Both performers and audience members participate in the latter.

However, moments of genuine care can also be witnessed, like when one massages the ass of his partner… before pushing him down the floor with his feet. After all, S&M isn’t about hurting the other with malignant intent; it’s about caring enough about the other to be able to fulfil their desire to experience pain. The men also rest on top of each other, gently blow on each other, carry each other in their arms, and arrange each other’s pubic hair. It’s the kind of love that makes it possible to hit each other with a belt and still be okay with one another.

After the show, I heard someone say “C’est con, mais c’est bon.” Yes, it is bon. More than bon, actually. But con it certainly isn’t. If anything, Still Standing You is one of the densest shows I have ever seen. Someone could write a PhD thesis about it (and undoubtedly will). It’s about man with a small “m” as beast. It’s about the non-existent line between male bonding behaviour and homoeroticism. It takes the piss out of contemporary dance. It’s a parody of gender performance, of machismo. It’s camp. Who else can claim to have managed to perform drag while completely naked? It’s quite simply the most riveting show I’ve seen in years.

Still Standing You
June 1-3 at 9pm
Théâtre La Chapelle
www.fta.qc.ca
514.844.3822
Tickets: 28$ / Under 31, over 64 years old: 22$