Duped!
Beth Gill experiments with transcendent body doubles.
Time Out New York
By Gia Kourlas
PUBLISHED: Nov 28, 2007
Beth Gill began her meticulous new quartet, Eleanor & Eleanor, by carefully considering the space it would inhabit: the cavernous, boxy stage of Dance Theater Workshop, where, as she noted after a recent rehearsal, the pitched angle of the audience to the stage theatricalizes everything—like it or not. “I don’t think choreographers want the bodies of their dancers to become so objectified, but they just naturally do because of the dimensions,” she says. “I wanted to build something that not only accepted that, but maybe used it as a mechanism. I started to let myself fantasize about dealing with the bodies in space with more abstraction then I’ve ever dealt with before in my work.”
Part of a shared program with choreographer Daniel Linehan’s new solo, Not About Everything, Eleanor & Eleanor began with Gill’s idea to build a diptych by creating two pieces alongside each other. “But it became less about a diptych and more about wanting duplication,” she explains. “I became fascinated by the idea of putting two bodies into unison. That’s where the title came from: I originally saw Eleanor Hullihan and Eleanor Bauer doing a unison, which started to get me to think about that very simple structure. It’s about them as fictionalized or real bodies in a space; that initial thinking set up a commitment to having the structure guide the shape of this piece.”
Bauer isn’t in the dance, but Hullihan is, along with Julie Alexander, Danielle Goldman and Kayvon Pourazar. While Gill, a graduate of NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, hasn’t produced a tremendous amount of work yet, what she has shown (Marginal Strip and wounded giant at Danspace Project and the Kitchen, respectively) identified a choreographic voice both rigorous and astute. Her experiments with space and time are even a bit mind-altering. There’s a stillness that crystallizes negative space and deceptively simple movements that, in turn, pulsate voluminously; both are framed within Gill’s impeccable structure.
Eleanor & Eleanor, which includes sound by Jon Moniaci, lighting by Joe Levasseur and design by Jeff Larson, opens the shared program—Gill requested to go first because, as she puts it, “I feel like this work needs to start with a controlled space.” Part of the piece is about honoring movement (there is a trio that serves as a comment on the lack of actual dancing in current contemporary choreography); it also hones in on a specific performance quality Gill is after. “The dancers are trying to abstract themselves in the space—I’m not even sure if I understand, at times, what that means,” Gill says. “We don’t want to disengage from what we’re doing, but we also don’t want to overengage. We’re trying to really be present—I think that word is used a lot, but it’s a complicated place to be. The agenda is to allow the composition of the dance to come to the forefront; the individual drops back.”
Still, there are moments, especially in Hullihan’s case, when the dancer transforms into Gill’s idea of a fictional body before your eyes; the choreographer describes it as “a strange kind of separation between the brain and the body.” In one moment, when Hullihan stands downstage, her body slowly shrinking toward the floor, it is not the collapse you notice, but the haunting way in which blood seems to drain from her face, rendering her skin waxy. It’s a bit like gazing at a portrait long enough to feel as though you’ve entered it.
“We worked to take the energy out of her form, out of her figure, out of her body, though energy is not the right word exactly,” Gill explains. “When she starts that series, I perceive her as being almost hyperengaged inside of a performance, and I worked with her to become gradually disengaged. We talked about this literally in terms of the eyes. You know the way that the eye can become dull? Like it stops having a sparkle or a glisten? It’s really weird, but she can do it, and I’m amazed by it.”



Rhiana (December 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm)
Doesn’t every semi-legitimate choreographer consider the space in which the performance will be constructed? Why is this worth noting as a unique attribute of Gill’s work? Hasn’t everyone since Yvonne Rainer considered theatricality and what it means? Hasn’t unison always had a riveting power simply because it’s visually striking? What’s new this time? Gill is commenting on the current trend of a lack of movement in contemporary choreography by not moving? How is annihilating movement honoring it? Can the dance world stop being so self-referential here? Can we make it relevant to the world outside of current contemporary dance fashion? What is this impeccable structure Gill creates? Can you be less vague? “The dancers are trying to abstract themselves in the space—I’m not even sure if I understand, at times, what that means,” Gill says. Maybe you should understand. If it’s abstract movement for movement’s sake then there should be movement. If it is abstracting the body from the person or vise versa–disengaging from the body, the moment, performance presence–then this is yet another tired reiteration of 1960s-era questioning of theatrical conventions. After 50 years, this can no longer be called challenging conventions. It’s no longer unsettling. Challenging certain conventions has become yet another convention.
Rhiana (December 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm)
I would greatly appreciate responses to this. Perhaps I’m not understanding what Gill was trying to accomplish or what Kourlas was trying to get at.
john (December 4th, 2007 at 4:33 pm)
My impression of what Gia Kourlas might be getting at with Beth Gill’s use of the space is that some choreographers will place their piece in a theater and adjust for space, while it seemed like Ms. Gill actually used the space. I saw it on the opening night and I got the feeling she really understood what she was working with even from the beginning when the curtains opened slowly all the way into the wings. I would think it was a definite choice for the audience to be able to see off-stage. Strangely, though, I was not distracted by any means with that. Having so much to look at, I was actually more focused on every precise tiny movement the dancers made. Isn’t that the nature of art, sometimes connecting to it and sometimes not?
As for the challenging of conventions, using stillness or considering theatricality are, to me, tools choreographers use. I’m not familiar with the rest of Gill’s body of work, so perhaps someone else could speak to where this comes from compared to her previous pieces. Perhaps what you find so aggravating about her work, Rhiana, is that it’s a single point in Gill’s exploration of her own artistic self. While not challenging any world of dance convention to you, perhaps she’s challenging her own way of working or her own habits & styles. Again, I can’t really give an answer to that because I’m not familiar with her earlier works. You bring up some interesting points.