Holding juxtaposition: post-performance reflections on "Four by Four"
By Emily Hansel
Woohoo we did it! I produced my first evening-length choreographic work, and it was awesome! Cut to: everyone in the world asking me what I’m making next. I’m only half joking when I respond with, give me a few years to recover then try asking me that again.
I understand the instinct though. When I finish reading a new book that I really liked, I immediately start waiting for the author’s next book to come out. But whew! I just poured my heart and brain and body and schedule into this project and I need a rest period. Not to mention, I just did something huge that I’ve never done before and I need to evaluate what all just happened before I can be intentional about what project I want to try next. (My production, Four by Four, premiered at ODC Theater one month ago, as I write this, so I’m at the very beginning of my assessment period.)
The word I’ve heard most from folks offering me feedback is “pleasure.”
One audience member described Four by Four as an antidote—a reprieve from everything else going on in the world. He asked me if I’d put care into considering what I was leaving the audience with. My answer is that I focused on the needs and desires of the dancers and myself and we built a culture that allowed for a rather joyful dance to be made. And we ended up sharing some of that joy with the audience.
In general, I’m somewhat interested in taking care of the audience, but just a little. Enough to ensure that the venue and the work is accessible and to make sure no one is harmed by the work we share. But I’m placing much more importance on the artists’ desires. And interestingly enough, that act alone was enough to make something that audience members were able to enjoy and/or engage with.
Show-goers have been asking me about the possibility of bringing the performance to other venues and locations. My first instinct is to answer no, touring seems highly unlikely. That said, Four by Four feels very excerpt-able, and if anyone out there runs a festival and wants to bring us in, hit me up, let’s do it. But realistically, I don’t expect Four by Four to have an extensive performance lifespan. Our single weekend of performances was awesome, and its fleeting nature is part of what made it so great. That weekend was a perfect culmination to the months we’d spent together in the studio. It wasn’t anything too precious.
I never thought I’d say this, but I’m actually not too attached to the movement that ended up onstage. Don’t get me wrong, I love the movement that made it into Four by Four and each little bit of it is valuable to me. But there isn’t a single part of it that absolutely neeeeds to be exactly as it is. There’s no part of Four by Four that couldn’t be further experimented on, edited, or even removed. For me, the essence of Four by Four is the dancers’ smiles, our “fuck it up” mantra, the improvisatory and fleeting nature of the choreography, and the looseness we achieved within the dogmatic confines of the theater. The essence of Four by Four is Alex, Chelsea, Mia, Shareen, Thomas, Sophia, Ben, and Emily—the four dancers who performed the piece, our scenic/lighting designer, our two composers, and me. These things and these people were the priority, and they were valued more than any particular movement vocabulary.
Fun fact (and completely contradictory notion): in several cases, the movement vocabulary came first, before the essence was revealed. So again I’ll mention that the movement vocabulary is in fact super valuable and important to me. But my point is that nothing is so precious that it couldn’t be reconsidered.
I’m realizing as I write this that, for me, Four by Four is largely about holding juxtaposition. Highly human movements and interactions taking place inside the decidedly contrived container of the theater. Improvisation within and alongside set choreography. Making a thing that is mine yet sharing it with an audience. Taking ownership of my choreographic voice while sharing authorship with co-creators. Being highly organized on paper with my lists, budgets, and calendars, while fighting my perfectionist tendencies in the studio.
These contradictions parallel several ironies I mention in the program note that I wrote for Four by Four:
“Our performance is the result of a process that was centered around a few goals:
- Creating a safe and equitable work environment
- Being adaptable and flexible
- Taking our time
- Practicing ongoing consent
- Embracing messiness and not knowing
- Opposing our capitalist tendencies toward productivity
There are several ironies at play here. Our not knowing led us to know new things. We took all the time we wanted until we got to theater week and only had three days to get the show up. In order to create any semblance of refusing capitalism, we spent lots of time considering various economic factors, like contracts, fundraising, and artist pay. And, evidently, our laid back, anti-capitalist studio time delivered a literal product that I’m inviting people to pay to attend.
In this product, you’ll witness some fairly abstract stuff—stuff that both means a lot and means nothing at all. Everything has really specific meaning, and everything has whatever meaning you decide it has. There’s plenty to get, nothing to get, you get what you get.”
If you would like to experience Four by Four, you can sign up to receive the video.
Four by Four is choreographed and directed by Emily Hansel, co-created and performed by Alex Carrington, Mia J. Chong, Shareen DeRyan, and Chelsea Reichert, with scenic and lighting design by Thomas Bowersox and original music by Sophia Cotraccia and Ben Juodvalkis.
Thanks to Jill Randall for offering this post-show writing opportunity.
Emily Hansel is a San Francisco-based dancer, choreographer, dance teacher, arts administrator, and dancer advocate.
---
Related posts:
“Four by Four” by Emily Hansel: Reflections on Product as Process (Molly Rose-Williams)
Empowering Dancers Through Contracts (Emily Hansel)
--------------
Comments