Art Here and Now » Theatre

While you’re dancing like a zombie, remember choreographer Michael Peters

Trout Monfalco — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:50:50 +0000

In all the news reports of record-breaking crowds gathering to recreate Thriller’s signature dance sequence from beginning to end, I’ve heard no mention of Michael Peters, who choreographed Thriller with Michael Jackson.

Michael Peters was an award winning choreographer, winning Tonys and Emmys for his work, including choreography for Donna Summer’s Love to Love You Baby, Michael Jackson’s Beat It, Pat Benatar’s Love is a Battlefield, Lionel Richie’s Hello, the film What’s Love Got to do With It?, and the original stage choreography for Dreamgirls. Michael Peters died in 1994.

People magazine did a story on him in 1984,
Michael Peters Is the Hot New Choreographer Who Makes Dancers Out of Video’s Rock Stars

Below is some of his well known choreography.

Thriller:

What’s Love Got to do With It?

Love is a Battlefield:

Beat It (Peters is the one in white):

Michael Peters and Michael Bennett win the Tony for Best Choreographer

Some other people you might not know about:
John Landis director, and his wife Deborah Landis, who designed the iconic red jacket for the video.

Buy the work of Michael Peters, Michael Jackson, John Landis, Dreamgirls, Lionel Richie, Pat Benatar, Donna Summer and Victor/Victoria.

No Art, Only Entertainment

Trout Monfalco — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:18:22 +0000

I’ve noticed for quite some time that most media web sites and newspapers do not have an Arts section. The closest you find is Entertainment. The meaning of these two is of course very different, not because art can’t be entertaining, it can be. But art often has more purpose to it than that. By sticking only to “Entertainment,” the media avoids discussion of any of the other reasons for art, or the cultural criticisms it might be presenting. It takes the easy route, sticking to celebrity gossip and celebrity fashion, and not a bigger cultural context, or inclusion of any artwork whose main purpose may be something other than Entertaining.

If your TV station or newspaper covers only Entertainment and not the Arts, write them and ask why, and ask them to change it (not just the name of the section, but what they cover.)

Some examples of “Entertainment” and no “Arts”:

Some great papers that still have an Arts section:

Endurance Art – Six Hours is Too Long

Trout Monfalco — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:54:45 +0000

Over the past few weeks, Elevator Repair Service has been in Portland and Seattle performing Gatz, their performance which involves the complete six hour reading of The Great Gatsby. I intended to go. But I just can’t bring myself to do it.

I’m up for any strange art thing, I mean I’m one of the odd kinds of people who would even hear “six hour performance” and seriously think about it. But you know, I have things to do. Laundry, walking in the park, making art, writing this blog, seeing other art, eating, etc. If I can’t bring myself to go to this thing, who does go to it? If I had gone, maybe I could have interviewed people in the audience and asked them.

There are other ridiculously long performances out there, like Philadelphia’s Brat Productions, which tours with a 24 hour marathon performance of Eugene Ionesco’s The Bald Soprano. The play isn’t 24 hours long, they just finish and start over again and again for 24 hours straight. I almost saw that one too (a long time ago), but I just couldn’t do it.

There are also abnormally long films. I love Peter Greenaway but have never brought myself to sit and watch The Falls because of it’s mere 3 hours 5 minutes running time, which really isn’t that long. (There’s a legend that the original cut and showing of the film was 6 hours long, but I can find no record of that online.) There are other truly long films, like The Longest Most Meaningless Movie in the World, running at 48 hours long. This seems more like ambiance and you could come and go if you wanted, drink heavily, take a nap, go clubbing with friends, then return where you left off.

And of course, opera is notoriously long. Get there at 6, leave at 11:30.

Certainly it is an amazing feat for performers, and acts to strengthen and train their focus and abilities. You could say the same for audiences, that it allows them to test their endurance, after which a three hour movie doesn’t seem so bad. For the ambient work, where you can come and go, eat, drink, talk with friends, the endurance isn’t really there. It’s incidental art that doesn’t require your full focus, and if a performer messes up or needs a break, nothing is broken.

In a time where most people find it hard enough to go see a two hour performance, busy with other things in their life, and someone like me won’t go who isn’t that busy and has devoted their life to art of various strange sorts — who and how many show up for a six hour performance? Why do they go?

Read more: Peter Greenaway’s The Falls, interview with Brat Productions about the 24 hour Bald Soprano, and a review of Elevator Repair Service’s Gatz.

Get: the work of Peter Greenaway, The Great Gatsby, long operas by Richard Wagner, great strange plays by Eugene Ionesco

Constanza Macras, Dorky Park – Back to the Present

If You Get Points, Is It Art?

Trout Monfalco — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:32:33 +0000

I went to an afternoon of flat track roller derby, and even though it’s a sport, I could care less who won or lost. A lot of us were there to be entertained. Roller derby is dramatic and theatrical. Lots of players and whole teams have strong characters (whether real or mythical), and the opening and half time shows are fun and over the top. You could see a lot of artistic types in the audience who don’t go to many other games. There’s something creative and entertaining drawing them in.

But when the main purpose behind a performance is to get points and be the winner, is it art?

Figure skating, ballroom dancing and DanceSport, color guard and some forms of gymnastics are all artistic performances where the main goal is to get points and win. In most cases, performers are required to play certain types of music, wear certain clothes, and use certain prescribed moves.

Most of the performers are clearly exceptional athletes, are very dedicated, and have great artistic skill. But many people, especially the “real artists,” look down on all this. For me the problem has always been the limits put on the work — why would you limit yourself to only certain moves or, for instance, being required to twirl a fake wooden rifle?

A lot of people have trouble with the motivation. If you’re there to get points, based on how well you perform predefined and accepted moves, where is your artistic voice, your unique viewpoint of the world? Another motivation is money. Money motivation also brings the artistic merits of TV shows, films and albums into question, even beyond TV art sports like American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, and On the Lot. Artistic authenticity and innovation are often the measures of success for modern artwork. Motivations for money, points and winning are contrary to real art.

You might say authenticity and innovation are the point system for modern art. But who are the hidden judges? What are the secret rules?

When artists apply for grants, panelists often look for predefined forms that, to them, define great art. When ballet dancers come on stage, the audience looks for a limited set of predefined moves that add up to what they think of as ballet. When donors give money to a theatre or opera, they vote with dollars for work that most fits what they think art should be. Curators, promoters, producers, executives, politicians, grantors, donors, boards of directors, ticket buyers, book and music lovers and others are all doling out points. Many artists don’t like to admit we’re influenced by these points. We are trying to win money or notoriety.

The perfect modern artist is someone whose work pops out like flower buds, for no other reason and purpose than the artist wants it to. Money or status have no influence whatsoever. These are people like Henry Darger, who painted in secret his whole life. He was pure, untainted by desire for money or fame.

But if you are authentic, and you aren’t influenced by your audience or worldly temptations, how do you know your art is doing what you intended? Are puppies and shaving creme really disturbing and life changing, or only to you? Do dinosaurs make everyone think of birds, or just paleontologists? Maybe your art is just boring, confused and badly made. How will you know if you don’t listen? How will you make better work if you aren’t willing to change and learn?

In modern art, forming a fake rock band or standing on a street corner and shouting curse words at drivers can both be art. Dressing like your grandmother while impersonating Nixon might be your authentic voice. Maybe in this confusing open ended anything-goes arena, the points we get are the only barometer we have for whether our work is to other people what it is to us. Once we get those points, we can decide to change, to work for more points at the possible smogging of our clear intents. Or we can decide to remain steadfast, and risk pulling a Van Gogh – dying penniless with no recognition. It seems Van Gogh was right. I think the key is that, after collecting the points, Success or Winning is just ultimately affecting the world as you wanted to, regardless of what other rewards that might come your way.

Maybe the art athletes have it all figured out. Get the rules in writing. By the end of the night, be called the winner in front of a cheering crowd, and get paid decently for all your skill and effort.

Get In the Realms of the Unreal, the fascinating documentary about Henry Darger; or From Ballroom To Dancesport: Aesthetics, Athletics, And Body Culture

Truce of Press and Theatre Previews

Trout Monfalco — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:03:18 +0000

After I wrote the post about Young Frankenstein yesterday, I ran into this post – Are Blogs Making The Time-Honored Preview Obsolete?

It’s common practice for the press to refrain from reviewing shows when they are in previews. If you do a search on Technorati or Google for “Young Frankenstein musical”, however, you’ll see that no one but the traditional press is adhering to that unspoken agreement.

The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein

The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein

Trout Monfalco — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:06:11 +0000

The Producers and Hairspray both began as movies, became musicals, and then turned into movie musicals. I have little doubt the new musical Young Frankenstein will follow the same footsteps.

It’s still in previews and has its flaws, but mostly it’s a lot of fun. From some really funny moments to a giant Frankenstein lab with lightning, Romanian and swing dancing, and Megan Mullally, Roger Bart, Christopher Fitzgerald, Sutton Foster and Andrea Martin, it’s a good time. Unfortunately my dormant memories of Haunted Honeymoon and Transylvania 6-5000 kept popping up. Thankfully few people have seen these movies.

Regional theatres all over the US have had financial difficulties for over a decade. One of the problems is getting audiences interested in new work which wasn’t written by someone they already know, and doesn’t star someone they’ve already seen (preferably a star). The musical blockbusters on Broadway, based on films, with big name stars, is a way to attract enough audiences to pay for such big productions. But is this theatre a living artform if it continually recycles ideas? Certainly every idea is a combination of new and old, but when the producers only want to risk already proven plots and characters, less new work gets a chance on stage. Instead you get Carrie the Musical and Clueless.

All that said, I’m so happy I got to see Andrea Martin as Frau Blucher. (Even I fell for the well loved stars and characters.)

Get Young Frankenstein, The Producers, stuff with Megan Mullally, stuff with Andrea Martin, Haunted Honeymoon, Transylvania 6-5000, or the book Not Since Carrie: Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops

Constanza Macras, Dorky Park – Back to the Present

Trout Monfalco — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:56:38 +0000

Throwing stuffed animals at each other while jumping on second hand furniture in between stripteases doesn’t count as art most of the time, even though it’s a helluva lot of fun. But Berlin choreographer Constanza Macras and company Dorky Park weave together an enticing performance that’s both fun and sexy while technically challenging. The company flips easily from dance to string quartet to stripping to punk band to honest monologue.

As an artist, this hint of run down apartment with used furniture, other artists hanging around all day doing strange things, getting sexy and then too introspective feels all very familiar. The monologues each performer gives hit right at the heart of being artists.

Several friends of mine have moved to Berlin in the past year. It’s felt like Berlin is the current Bohemia, in the tradition of Bloomsbury, Montmartre and The East Village. Cheap rent in former East Berlin housing, a bustling metropolis, ways for artists to make a living at their work, and a big artist population make it a great place to be.

Far more than fun, sexy, and talented, what hit me watching this was how much fun it must be to live in Berlin right now. The members of Dorky Park are from all over the world, but are based out of Berlin. I’ve lived in some great places with solid artist communities, but I’ve never been at the center of Bohemia. Having such a powerful, collective creativity all around you pushes you to do more and better, and makes you feel anything is possible.

I’m jealous of artists in Berlin.

How Long Does a Bohemian Flower Bloom?