• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. Uni International 300 N ?EEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WC1R 4fcJ. ENGLAND 1315830 WHITAKER, LESLIE ANN PILQBQLUSî AN ANALYSIS OF A CURRENT DANCE COMPANY. THE AMERICAN UN IVERSITY, M .A ., 19B0 University COPR. 198 0 WHITAKER, LESLIE ANN Microfilms I n ter n at i O n aI 300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 © 1980 LESLIE ANN WHITAKER All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark . 1. Glossy photographs 2. Colored illustrations 3. Photographs with dark background \/ 4. Illustrations are poor copy________ 5. °rint shows through as there is text on both sides of page 6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ^ 7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine 8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print 9. Page(s) _____ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author 10. Page(s) _______ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows 11. Poor carbon copy________ 12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type 13. Appendix pages are poor copy ________ 14. Original copy with light type ________ 15. Curling and wrinkled pages ________ 16. Other Univeî3icy Mkzrdnlms IntEmarional :0C \ Z = = = AN'N AR30P Ml 48106 ‘313) 761-4700 PILOBOLUS: AN ANALYSIS OF A CURRENT DANCE COMPANY by Leslie Ann Whitaker Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Dance Signature^^'-pfi Committee: Chairman//^^^^%v( . ^ S- Y?ljsyy^ Dean of the College Date 1980 The American University Washington, D.C. 20016 THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY PILOBOLUS: AN ANALYSIS OF A CURRENT DANCE COMPANY by Leslie Ann Whitaker ABSTRACT Pilobolus is a dance troupe of highly skilled theatrical perfor­ mers who have developed a theater art form unique in its material and presentation. The group has become a focal point of controversy. Its development can only be traced through scattered and haphazard press reviews. This thesis provides an examination of the internal workings of Pilobolus, their process of choreography and their compositions, as well as the critical reaction to the group, the philosophical and technical questions raised, and a synthesis of a cohesive picture of the conjectures about Pilobolus. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................... I I. HISTORICAL PROFILE............................... 2 The Choreographic Process....................... 2 The Technique................................... il II. THE CHOREOGRAPHIC GROWTH OF PILOBOLUS AS SEEN THROUGH THE REPERTORY..................... 14 Characteristics of the Choreography............ 14 The Amoebic Period.............................. 16 The Human Condition............................. 30 New Directions................................ 38 III. PILOBOLUS IN THE CURRENT DANCE FRAMEWORK 40 Post-Judson: A Source of Comparison............ 40 Pilobolus and Judson Technique............. 41 Composition................................. 43 Theater/Dramatic Presentation.............. 44 Pilobolus and Alwin Nikolais ............ 46 A Philosophy of Dance: Is Pilobolus Art?....... 49 Pilobolus — Its Relevancy to Today's World 50 Function and Form: Is Pilobolus Gymnastics?.... 53 The Critics' Views.............................. 56 The Foreign Critics....................... 63 IV. SUMMARY: PILOBOLUS INTERVIEWED................. 65 APPENDIX A - REPERTORY IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 73 APPENDIX B - DANCERS OF PILOBOLUS................. 74 APPENDIX C - SELECTED EVENTS OF THE SEVENTIES 76 APPENDIX D - A PARTIAL CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE PILOBOLUS TOURING SCHEDULE AND CORRES­ PONDING AVAILABLE REVIEWS.......................... 78 APPENDIX E - PLAYBILL.............................. 89 APPENDIX F - SELECTED REVIEWS...................... 90 APPENDIX G - SELECTED PROGRAMS..................... 98 ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1. The Amoebic Period ........ 20 Illustration 2. Major Group Works of Pilobolus.... 30 Illustration 3. Philosophical Ideas of Judson Choreographers............ 42 iii INTRODUCTION Pilobolus is a group of highly skilled theatrical performers who have developed a theater art form unique in its material and pres­ entation. They are playing to packed houses. There are videotapes of their work; there are masses of reviews with fragmented impressions of their compositions, and there are reams of comments on their style. They are an important contemporary dance company and this thesis will address the issues of their relationship to the mainstream of contem­ porary dance, the qualities characteristic of their movement and why they command such a varied response from their viewers. In existence only nine years, Pilobolus has become a focal point of controversy and its development can only be traced through the press reviews of performances. These reviews provide an interesting history of the company. However, they are scattered and haphazard in their isolated reactions to the performances of Pilobolus. They do not pro­ vide any consistent chronological or developmental history of the group which would examine the Internal workings of Pilobolus, their process of choreography, their compositions. This thesis provides that history, along with an analysis of the critical reaction to the group and the philosophical and technical questions raised, and concludes with a synthesis and a cohesive picture of the many conjectures made about Pilobolus. I. HISTORICAL PROFILE The essence of modern dance is choreography and not technique. Don McDonagh, Don McDonagh's Complete Guide to Modern Dance Many contemporary dance companies' styles of movement rely on a self-styled ideology of technique, chiefly one that reflects the choreographer's needs and is designed to achieve his goals. Not so the Pilobolus dance company. There are two reasons for this. First, the Pilobolus choreographer is an amalgam of six people with limited dance backgrounds; and second, Pilobolus frequently does not move as a set of independent individuals but as an appendage to a larger, collective being. It is this collectiveness that has baffled attempts at defining Pilobolus movement. The Pilobolus creative process devel­ oped choreography and choreographic methods which continue to grow and evolve. This chapter discusses the techniques that evolved from this process. The Choreographic Process The source of the choreographic process was Alison Chase, who in 1970 was a new dance instructor at the all-male Dartmouth College. Evaluating the classroom situation where her students were all male and athletically biased, she said, "There's a limit to how much tech­ nique can be taught to a group of muscle-bound beginners. But anyone can try his hand at choreography, right boys?"^ In 1970 Dartmouth ^Shanta Serbjeet Singh, "Pilobolus Dance Theater," The Tribune (New Delhi), 26 November 1978. was known as a jock school, but in drawing on their athletic background and insisting on short compositions, Mrs. Chase struck a responsive chord. The dance class was "a physical release from competitive sports 2 and competitive academics. That’s why people enjoyed it." Mrs. Chase concentrated on basic body alignment, improvisation and composition. "She'd look at your work from your point of view— that of a swim team 3 guy taking a dance class." For the end of the year concert, a cross-country skier (Moses Pendleton), a fencer (Jonathan Wolken) and a pole-vaulter (Steve Johnson) choreographed a composition called Pilobolus. This composition was characterized

Load more

  123

Copy Link