Up until recently, I had never left a show right in the middle of it. I still have a hard time not finishing a book I've started, even if I'm having trouble getting into it, or am simply not enjoying it. But life is too short to waste time on something you're truly not enjoying. This post is a sort of review, sort of discussion of the value of art, using a recently produced ballet piece as a jumping off point.
I had a ticket to see The Royal Winnipeg Ballet's new piece, Going Home Star - Truth and Reconciliation as part of my Dance Victoria subscription, and as someone who studied Canadian history and enjoys the exploration of darker themes through performance art, I was really looking forward to seeing this piece. The piece basically looks at the impact the residential schools had on First Nations people, which is groundbreaking in terms of content and the chosen medium with which to tell this story (ballet). Check out RWB's page to learn more.
From the very beginning of the show, I was unimpressed. First of all, The Royal Winnipeg Ballet is one of the best ballet companies in the world, so I was expecting world-class performances. What I felt I got was rather uninspired, especially from the lead female dancer (the male dancers impressed me more than the women in general - the man dancing the part of the violently Catholic school headmaster was a standout.) I was also not at all keen on the music, which, in the first half, was comprised mostly of throat-singing, which normally I find really beautiful and moving, but in this piece, alongside the lackluster dancing, I found grating and distracting.
A bigger issue for me, though, was that in this retelling of a significant story in Aboriginal history, there were no Aboriginal dancers. For some reason I felt really put off and oddly offended watching Asian dancers portraying First Nations people and blond Russian dancers portraying North Americans. Come on folks - we couldn't find ANY First Nations ballerinas in the entire world of dance to perform in this story of First Nations people?! This seemed like such backhanded cultural appropriation to me, even though the whole idea of this piece (and the caveat that it must be performed as a ballet) actually came from a First Nations woman! As a white woman perhaps it's not my place to feel offended by something like this, but I did and I do.
I also just could not imagine sitting through this entire show and witnessing at the end of it the impassioned standing ovation that was surely coming, surrounded by uppity middle- to upper-class white folks who felt that because they bought a ticket to the ballet they were part of some great reparation. I'm aware this is a contentious stance to take, considering this is exactly what the piece aims to do... it has the words "truth and reconciliation" in the title, after all. But I can't help but wonder how many of those audience members are the same people who also rail against the homeless in our city, many of whom are First Nations and have landed on the streets as a direct result of residential schools and our successful decimation of their culture and their people. This, of course, is total speculation and could be way off base, but these are the things I think about and wonder if people make the same kinds of connections.
Now, admittedly I left at intermission, so I can only speak to my experience of the first half. And I've heard the second was a bit better, and of course everything all came together and the point was made. I think in terms of the content and having this story reach a new demographic, the piece is successful. If it comes to your town and you're interested, you should go see it. But overall, as someone who studied, in particular, this dark part of Canadian and Aboriginal history, I was unmoved, unimpressed, and disappointed with the overall execution.
I will say though, that this piece obviously holds much more importance for First Nations people, whose story is being told. Perhaps that's what's most important.
As part of the same yearly dance subscription I had seen a show brought in from Ballet BC, which had similar themes in one of its pieces. This dance was not at all as literal, but the audience certainly got the meaning, and the performance was breathtaking. The dancers' movements were articulate and fluid, the music was varied but paid beautiful homage to First Nations culture (there was a whole section danced to whalesong!), and there was a moment when all dancers lay on the red-lit washed stage, alternately pulsing with the music, which spoke to me of the First People's struggle far more intimately and powerfully than any moment in Going Home Star. The Ballet BC piece was subtle, powerful, and beautifully performed. To my mind, it vastly outshined RWB's heavy-handed, almost schmaltzy portrayal.
This leads me to a wider discussion of the value of these types of pieces. We recently had an exceptional piece of theatre come to my work from Buddies in Bad Times Theatre in Toronto, called The Gay Heritage Project, which looked at gay culture throughout history and asked the question "Is there such a thing as gay heritage?" The piece is performed by 3 uber-talented young men and is comprised of vignettes based on their experiences as gay men and their studies on the subject of gay history. When speaking with one of my coworkers about this play, she mentioned that she finds it difficult to comment on a piece like this, considering the content - obviously the subject matter is of importance, and therefore to critique it would be a tricky line to navigate. I disagree. I think this line of thinking is a cop-out that a person may use instead of speaking their mind about a piece of art and possibly offending people. Just because a piece of art talks about an important issue does not automatically make it a high quality piece of art; sometimes a monologue is just self-important, pretentious drivel. Sometimes a painting is just crap. Sometimes a play has a weak script and uninspired delivery. The theme of the piece has nothing to do with its quality of execution, and artists who assume they've done a good job simply because they are talking about a certain subject are obviously more interested in self-service than in creating meaningful art. Artistic merit has to be based on more than content.
(Going back to The Gay Heritage Project: if this piece comes to your town, see it. It's an incredible, celebratory, and moving piece of theatre.)
It's always really important to remember that art is subjective (and that's one of the wonderful things about it). I've always had a problem with people who judge others based on the type of music they like, for example. Maybe you think Nickleback is crap (or Steely Dan, or Styx - whatever), but making an assumption about someone based on the fact that they enjoy their music says more about you as a person than it does about the Nickleback-lover, you judgemental prick. What bearing does someone else's musical taste have on you and your life? Why do you even care? Does everyone have to agree with your tastes? Why can't we let people like what they like?! It's like judging a person based on the type of food they like to eat; I abhor mushrooms and always have, but I don't think any less of someone who loves mushrooms, because that would be fucking stupid.
What I'm saying is this: the fact that I didn't enjoy my experience of Going Home Star does not and should not make the piece any less meaningful for someone else. And anyway, being a supporter of the arts often means taking risks and possibly paying to see a piece you don't like. But the important thing is that we are going out and supporting the arts and (hopefully) having open, respectful dialogue afterwards. At the end of the day, art that incites any kind of discussion is worthwhile and valuable.
No comments:
Post a Comment