Melina Scialom
SDCS Dynamic Body
A Choreological analysis of Dimitris Papaioannou’s “2” (2006): Dynamic bodies on stage.
By Melina Scialom melinascialom@gmail.com www.poeticmotions.com
Introduction This essay presents a choreological analysis of 2 by Dimitris Papaioannou.1 It focuses on the analysis of the nexus of strands of the dance medium2, drawing attention to the understanding the choreographic choices and manipulations of dynamics. The focus is directed to the development of counterpoints that transforms the behaviour action into a dance spectacle phenomenon. Specifically (in choreological terms) I will I will look at how manipulations into the movement strand (Preston-‐Dunlop & Sanchez-‐ Colberg 2010) create meaning in 2. Narrowing the focus of this analysis, I am particularly interested in the ways that the combination and contrast of dynamic qualities construct moods that transform semiotic into phenomenal content. Born in Athens in 1964, Dimitris Papaioannou is a Greek choreographer and stage director who started his artistic career as a visual artist. Along his career he gradually immersed himself in theatrical productions and today his work is known for ‘exploring the boundaries between theatre, dance and visual arts’ (DP Note, 2006). Up until 2012 he had summed up 36 stage performances. 2 is a dance-‐theatre performance that in 90 minutes communicates masculinity and the male environment ‘with understanding and tenderness, but coupled with the necessary cynicism’ (DP Note, 2006). The programme notes disclose exactly what the piece reveals: schizophrenia of masculine daily routine, experiences, fantasies and male projections. 1
I have pursued an analysis of a video recording of a performance. I have not watched the live performance of this choreography. This analysis is based on what is seen on video. Through email contact with the choreographer, Dimitris Papaioannou kindly made available for educational proposes the translation of the dialogues of the performance including a copy of the programme. 2 Preston Dunlop (1998) suggests that the dance medium is composed of four strands: the movement, the performer, the sound and the space.
1
Melina Scialom
SDCS Dynamic Body
Strands of the medium The piece has 22 males on stage dressing daily male clothes such as suits, blazers, jeans trousers, jackets, boxer underpants, formal shoes and trainers. The performers seem to be trained in contemporary dance technique as well as demonstrate acting skills (as they perform behaviour gesture without any stylisation). The fragmentation of the body is a recurrent theme of the performance. The fragmented body brings an illusion of extra-‐ordinary environment. Examples are at 49’ where fragmentation done through the use of stage prop and at 52:30 where the combination of two bodies create a fragmented body effect. Other examples are when the fragmented body reveals a phenomenon at 21:12 or allows for symbols to be generated 27:40 to 31. Preston-‐Dunlop (2010:264) suggests that fragmentation ‘dehumanises’ human movement. However in 2 it does not take away the humanity of the performers but proposes a dream-‐like state or even cinematographic perspective to the scene (as disclosed further in this essay). The space is integrated with the movement strand. It includes a steep and mobile slope on the back of the stage and a pair of sliding belts that cross the stage sideways. There are also sets of props that coexist with the movement (such as large rectangular boards) or integrate, generating soundtrack (such as the microphones). Projection is used on the back wall, reiterating the space-‐movement-‐sound nexus. The movement strand reveals the choreographer’s affinity with behaviour. Its use as choreographic vocabulary enables the combination of semiotic and phenomenological content, inciting meanings that emerge from the dynamics of the moving body. The combination of semiotic and phenomenological content evokes the use of ‘binocular vision’ to analyse the movement content. The concept created by Bert States (1985, :8) predicts that one eye sees the world phenomenally while the other sees it significantly. The combination of the elements of the performance either signifying something (semiotic content) or being nothing but itself (phenomenon) provide a possibility of creating meaningful work and develop dramaturgical tensions. This analysis proceeds based on State’s binocular vision, looking at symbolic and phenomenological content and how one becomes the other through choreographic manipulation of dynamics. The piece has behaviour as its main kinetic content, present on the trace of the movement material. Preston-‐Dunlop (1998: 83) explains that behaviour is a type of movement vocabulary where the signs are on its trace and embedded in the movement
2
Melina Scialom
SDCS Dynamic Body
itself (idem: 23-‐4). A number of the symbolic gestures repeated along the piece have not received any choreographic treatment -‐ for example the relationship of the performers with their genitals and smoking gestures. These are two typical western masculine behaviour actions are enacted just as it happens in daily life. Warren Lamb (1979) explains that each and every behaviour movement reflects a feeling and produces meaning. Behaviour being a form of coded movement (Preston-‐ Dunlop, 1998: 9) is used by the choreographer both straight (as it happens in daily life) and also transformed. The performance starts with a performer in a typical behaviour posture: a man with his weight transferred into one leg and hands tucked in his trousers’ front pockets. He waits for two luggage to slide towards him in the rolling belt. From this first causal airport scene behaviour movement invites a semiotic vision of the piece. Laban (Laban in Preston-‐Dunlop & Sanchez-‐Colberg 2010: 67) understands that behaviour brings a ‘natural order’ to movement developing certain meaning and not settling in a ‘dream-‐like’ state. Likewise, Lamb (1965: 88) previews the creative possibilities inherent in daily behaviour when he states that ‘seeds of dance expression are present in physical behaviour’, as we are both constantly participating and communicating through these movements. As a choreographic tool Papaioannou uses stereotyped masculine behaviour and treats it in different ways along the piece, transforming its semiotic content in phenomenal movement. Preston-‐Dunlop (2010: 20) clarifies that ‘choreographic treatment’ are the means used to shape ideas, creating the identity of a work. One of the treatments or manipulation devices Papaioannou uses is repetition. In the scenes at 8:15 and 9:23 we can notice not only repetition but also exaggeration and speeding of gestures. Another type of manipulation happens through the shift of the ‘choreological order’ (Preston-‐Dunlop, 2010: 64; Laban, 1966: 4) of the rhythm in the gestures that produce a video-‐game effect in the performers. For example, in 11:40 when the performers are slapping each other’s face, their gesture is composed of a series of rebounds instead of conventional impacts. The integrated robotic sound developed by other two dancers on stage enhances the video-‐game-‐like scene as the combat proceeds, reinforcing the rebounds and consequently artificial quality of the movements. Bartenieff (1980 :93) brings out that even subtle differences in Effort/dynamic combinations affects what is being communicated.
3
Melina Scialom
SDCS Dynamic Body
Other types of manipulation of behaviour result in phenomenal illusions of slow-‐ motion of the dancers. Using sustained and strong movements the slow motion effect is achieved. To perform these efforts dancers work in duets where one is literally lifting other dancer off the floor by grabbing onto his clothes, allowing him to perform sustained aerial motions (such as in 14’). At 15’ the addition of indirect space enhances the effect, when other bodily tensions are perceived rather than the direction of the action. The body design of the performers becomes evident as the progression of their movement disappears. Regarding the flow of the slow motion effect, Cecil Dell (1977:17) explains that this state is achieved when the flow is ‘even’ and not shifting between bound and free. This type of movement reinforces the cinematographic and video-‐game effect stressed throughout the scenes, always merging sustained time together with light or strong weight.3 This effect transforms the semiotic content of the actions into cinematographic phenomenon. The cinematographic effect is established from the beginning of the piece when the entire cast on stage embody sustained, light and direct Efforts with shifts to sudden and strong, characterising what the programme blurb describes as the ‘cool blue world’ (Kangelari 2007: 8). The cinematographic effect is also visible when counterpoints are established. An example is at the intermission of the slow motion with the entrance of a duet at 16:44 which moves in short impacts and rebounds changing the energy while adding sudden, direct and light dynamics to the scene. Another example is at 59’ the combination of slow-‐motion effect resembles as if time had stopped (sustained and bound Efforts) as the dancers are held upside-‐down while other group embodies opposite Efforts -‐ sudden and free -‐ enacting typical male games. At the same time a bed is being dragged around with a man lying over it with his trousers lowered to his shins with a semiotic sexual behaviour performing strong, sudden and direct impulses with his hip. The sound is integrated as dancers perform screaming noises over a marked beat soundscape. This is an example of the chaos that is generated to introduce a counterpoint to the following scene.
3
Laban (1980, p.79) suggests that when the effort qualities of time and weight are the most prominent ones in the movement, a ‘near’ state is developed. This incites a presence with careful consideration
4
Melina Scialom
SDCS Dynamic Body
Dynamic counterpoints4 are another choreographic tool Papaioannou used to shift semiotic behaviour into phenomenon. The pattern of developing counterpoints with either changes to opposite Effort and rhythmic dynamics, or from a chaotic and crowded scene to a solo is recurrent in the piece. Counterpoints could also resemble conflicts. According to Newlove (1993:119) conflicts are ‘occupied with emotions’ which result in the structure of a drama. The theatre director Euginio Barba (2010, p.105) explains that counterpoint is one of the effects that contribute to the dramaturgy (or development of tensions and meanings) of a piece. The office/toilet scene (from 28:30 to 34:20) is an examples of rhythmic counterpoint where multiple different actions happen simultaneously (combining a variety of rhythmic phrases of impacts, impulses, rebounds and continuous with the predominance of body designs), shifts into a dark and empty office with one performer in a continuous (with slight accelerations and decelerations) sustained and light motion, presenting an overall lack of rhythmic change. This change modifies the environment which is juxtaposed with the sound that also shifts from Dick Dale’s Misirlou to a continuous tonal soundscape. Other examples are at 17:33 when a duet scene (described earlier) transitions to the next scene through the entrance of a motionless performer who is taken into the stage by the movement of the sliding belt. Counterpoints are also established when sudden dynamic changes take place. For example on 50’ to 53:30 motionless dancers slide onto the stage and burst into a sudden, strong and direct race towards the top of the backstage slope, however they never manage to reach the top and fall/slide down in a sustained, heavy and bound motion. This is followed by an integrated soundscape that accompany the dynamic changes of the movement. The counterpoint happens again when dancers slide off stage remaining a duet that embody a fragmented animal-‐like body walking upstage with a continuous sustained motion. These counterpoints reveal a semiotic sense of the personal and lonely inner experience of a man and his outer chaotic social life, picturing an individual versus a collective experience. Both of these choreographic tools (behaviour, slow-‐motion and
4
Although the notion of counterpoint is mainly used in Choreutics (space) relationships, I am applying it here in the sense of having dynamic and effort counterpoints when working with opposite Effort qualities (based on Laban’s (Laban & Lawrence 1947) effort graph) .
5
Melina Scialom
SDCS Dynamic Body
counterpoints) bring meaning to the movement and scenes as Lamb remembers that ‘meaning of movement is to be found in the way in which the pattern [of effort and shape] changes’ (Lamb 1979, p.82). Conclusion I conclude this essay by highlighting that the manipulation of Effort combinations influence and even create meaning in dance-‐theatre works. The use of behaviour as movement vocabulary added to the choreological treatment of symbolic gestures contribute to generate shifts between semiotic and phenomenological content. These shifts create a dramaturgy of tensions and counterpoints, and manipulate meaning in the piece, transforming it into a phenomenal spectacle. Cited References Barba, E. (2010). On directing and dramaturgy: burning the house. London ; New York: Routledge. Bartenieff, I. & Lewis, D. (1980). Body movement: coping with the environment. New York: Gordon and Breach Science. Dell, C. (1977). A primer for movement description using effort-‐shape and supplementary concepts. New York: Dance Notation Bureau. DP. (2006). Notes. 2 Programme Notes. Kangelari, D. (2007). 2. Programme Notes. Laban, R. von (1966). Choreutics. Macdonald & Evans. Laban, R. von & Lawrence, F.C. (1947). Effort. London: Macdonald and Evans. Laban, R. von & Ullmann, L. (1980). Mastery of movement. Plymouth: Macdonald & Evans. Lamb, W. (1965). Posture and Gesture. Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd.
6
Melina Scialom
SDCS Dynamic Body
Lamb, W. & Watson, E.M. (1979). Body code: the meaning in movement. London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Newlove, J. & Laban, R. von (1993). Laban for actors and dancers : putting Laban’s movement theory into practice, a step-‐by-‐step guide. London: Nick Hern Books. Preston-‐Dunlop, V. (1998). Looking at dances : a choreological perspective on choreography. Ightham: Verve. Preston-‐Dunlop, V.M. & Sanchez-‐Colberg, A. (2010). Dance and the performative : a choreological perspective : Laban and beyond. Alton, Hampshire: Dance Books. States, B.O. (1985). Great reckonings in little rooms : on the phenomenology of the theater. Berkeley ; London: University of California Press.
7