Hofesh Shechter: Hero or Villain?
When the Rite of Spring had its world premiere in Paris in 1913, the audience's reaction wasn't pretty. Outrage, shock and disgust swept through the rows of the Theatre des Champs-Elysees as people rose up in protest at the so called disgraceful performance. I've often thought about moments in history where I could have been present and this is definitely one of them. To watch in the shadows as members of the public were physically repulsed and horrified by the music and dance certainly would have been an unmissable experience. I'm not particularly interested in art that shocks for the sake of being shocking; however, with a score by Stravinsky and movement by Nijinsky (great rhyme there) this was art in its most technical form yet shocked hundreds. We don't quite have this at the moment; however, there are some examples where choreography either completely divides an audience's opinion or creates some strong reaction. Hofesh Shechter's premiere of Untouchable for the Royal Ballet did just this.
I saw something similar at the opening night of Wayne McGregor's Carbon Life where the more traditionalist audience members huffed and puffed and left the building in anger. I, however, was on the edge of my seat, completely engaged with the performance and excited at the reaction it was causing. Untouchable was a similar experience, especially during the Middle Eastern 'Nigel Farage' chant where many looked at each other confused and bewildered. Fair enough. Why was this being chanted? Part of me didn't care, since there was a reaction that you just don't get during a performance of a ballet such as Swan Lake unless Osipova's pointe shoes are smoking after 3000 pirouettes. I've been reading many opposing views about the performance which has been a fascinating experience. Some argue that it's a waste of time for a company like the Royal to be entertaining such choreography, others think that the message Shechter is putting out there is important, while some just feel that the choreography itself was lacking any interesting movement. There's a place for all opinion as this is art, and much of art is subjective; however, I do find it difficult to ignore the view that this type of performance should be put to one side by the Royal Ballet. I'm sure that much of the audience's reaction to the Rite of Spring stemmed from being frightened of change. Stravinsky's music was bold and revolutionary and Nijinsky's choreography was far from delicate and pretty. As many were worried that these styles would define the times and all beauty would become extinct, the audience itself became the very symbol of ugliness and destruction (fights broke out in the auditorium along with shouting and screaming). Today, I wonder how much we have moved on. Are our critical opinions purely derived from somewhere intellectual, or are we also afraid? Do our reactions originate from a place of fear where we are nervous that such choreography will take over, and the likes of Giselle and Swan Lake will be forgotten in years to come? I argue that there will always be a place for both, just as long as we acknowledge and appreciate that all styles of dance have their relevance. Of course not everything can be to our taste, but to dismiss certain works because they do not coincide with our likes or preferences could potentially limit what we see on stage. So the Royal Ballet should absolutely welcome a range of choreographers who are masters in different dance styles as it will not only push the dancers and give them an opportunity to revel in something different, but it will also broaden our knowledge and open our eyes to what else is out there. How depressing it would be to just re-visit the same ballets over and over again.
What Shechter has created is certainly something different. Movement which requires a more relaxed torso, a curved body shape and an aggressive style. It's unusual for a classically trained ballet company to have such an opportunity and I think they performed fantastically. It's not dance in its most technical form, nor is it choreography that creates beautiful shapes, but it does create the presence of war, destruction and anger. I didn't really look at this choreography in terms of a staged performance. Instead I chose to see the way Shechter balanced movement with music, how he manipulated the bodies on stage to move with fluidity and create an illusion of a school of fish or how he blended every individual dancer to make one whole, one moving body. For me, that was the talent and that is what I liked. I'm not used to seeing choreography that can do this. Dancers at the Royal are brought up with MacMillan, who felt that every dancer on stage had a story. For Shechter, your story isn't important. You're angry, but you must all be angry together, in the same way, at the same time. Many have complained that he didn't really prioritise solo sections but I don't see that being an issue at all. If Untouchable is about war, or a marginalised society or group, then you are stronger as a team. The piece seemed to me to be all about uprising and rebellion, and in a march or a protest you don't really want to hear from just one person, you need to hear from everybody. You need the numbers to get noticed and you need all of those voices. A solo, therefore, wouldn't have been appropriate. The choreography was successful in creating this intimidating environment as it was frightening, abrasive and ominous. The music also added well to this, with loud explosive sounds shaking the auditorium and fast drumming creating a sense of panic. He unsettled us and woke us up, screaming to his audience and demanding that we listen. Well I'm listening Shechter, even if the majority aren't. Certain dancers also really got the hang of it all such as Matthew Ball and Luca Acri, both of whom affected the right amount of aggression and intimidating nature. Tierney Heap was also a revelation, her body was fluid and snake-lake and contorted perfectly to the disturbed shapes.
It's clear that Untouchable is not for everybody. Nor should it be. It has created debate, surprise and at the end of the day a reaction, whether it be good or bad. Many argue that it's actually completely unoriginal since most of Shechter's other work looks pretty much the same (a problem many believe McGregor is facing). This is the first of his works that I have seen but from my YouTube browsing I think it's a fair judgement. I found, however, originality in the movement and in the interpretation of the Royal Ballet dancers. From them, there was such a burst of energy, which had obviously derived from their relief at being given this opportunity. Darcey Bussell once said that being involved in new works every year is what kept her going and that it would have been awful to just do 'the things that sell'. It's not much of a sacrifice to allow a short 30 minute piece to be put in a triple bill once a year, if it's going to keep the dancers interested and engaged. I think that Kevin O'Hare understands this and I wonder whether the list of departures at the end of every season would be greater if the repertoire were more limited? I have a feeling it would be. So sod the critics, including myself, and let a range of choreography run freely on this stage, because whether we like it or not, it is all necessary.