WIP ’10 Showcase #1

Galatos/MIC, Auckland

25/05/2010 - 26/05/2010

Production Details

WIP ’10 – Works In Progress 2010 Showcase #1

WIP ’10 is a curated winter showcase series featuring new short works by emerging
dance artists in a low tech environment. Stay and talk after the show.  

WIP ’10 – Works In Progress is a platform initiative set up by the DANZ Interns and MIC Toi Rerehiko for emerging dance artists to present works in a semi-professional supportive performance setting.

This initative will be held in the final week of May, June, July and August of 2010 at Galatos. With support from MIC Toi Rerehiko this is run as a project for the DANZ Internship Programme in an attempt to fill a gap in the industry for emerging choreographers. As emerging chorographers the Interns appreciate and understand the benefit of a platform such as this and therefore are delighted  to inform other emerging dance artists of this new opportunity

WIP is a platform that lets emerging choreographers have real industry experience in a safe and supportive environment, and a chance to advertise their choreographic and performative ability. As a dance industry, we should get behind anything that supports the creative leaders of the future – which is exactly what WIP is intended for”. (Olivia Danz intern 2010).

This platform initiative is an exciting prospect for all emerging choreographers. Having opportunities such as this to present your work in progress before an audience within an environment such as Galatos could be extremely beneficial to the progression of your choreography

“WIP will provide a much needed opportunity for emerging choreographers to find their feet and put on work in an encouraging environment outside of their training institution.”

The DANZ Interns

The DANZ Interns wish to thank MIC for providing Galatos and DANZ for support throughout this process. Without these connections and cooperation this project would not be possible. As Interns it is an incredibly beneficial learning experience and they are all very grateful to be part of this initiative.

The 2010 Interns are Amy Mauvan, Jess Quaid, Olivia Hartles, Sam Wood, Sarala Niven and Mele Taeiloa. 

WIP ’10 performances will be held in the final week of May, June, July and August at
Galatos in Auckland.

Monday 24 May (preview/tech rehearsal), Tuesday 25 May and Wednesday 26 May. 
Galatos. 8pm. 
Door sales only $10/$8.

Choreographer: Amy Mauvan
Dancers: Anna Flaherty, Samantha Wood, Georgia Giesen, Febe Holmes

‘Duo in 3 Parts’
Choreographer: Benny Ord
Dancers: Sarah Beron, Benny Ord

Choreographer: Hannah Tasker-Poland
Dancers: Samantha Wood, Rosalie Van Horick, Anna Flaherty, Elise Chan

Choreographed and Performed by: Emily Campbell and Zhara Killeen-Chance

Talented emerging dance artists explore different movement vocabularies

Review by 26th May 2010

This evening’s works in progress (WIP ’10 Showcase #1) is the first season of a new initiative backed by DANZ and MIC Toi Rerehiko for the emerging dance artists of Auckland’s tertiary scene. Choreography, dance and live music are brought together in an impressive and tightly knit evening of developing works.

Tonight’s work features youthful art by Amy Mauvan, Benny Ord, Hannah Tasker-Poland and a splendid duet by dancers Zhara Killeen-Chance and Emily Campbell. They are definitely talented.

Thematically driven and conceptually laden, the first dance, Boxed (choreographed by Amy Mauvan)is like a study of virtuoso energetics. Dancers Anna Flaherty, Samantha Wood, Georgia Giesen and Febe Holmes, whilst staying within a range of their own dynamic movements, draw shape and tension from the classical sounds of Beethoven’s ‘Concerto No.5 in E Flat major’.

The arpeggios of their successive dancing bodies provide viscerally satisfying sequences of movement, and they dance what seems like the notes of the piano at times, embodying the very passion that stirred that composer’s soul.

Galatos is a challenging space for an audience, with especially difficult sightlines for dance, but somehow for this dance that was never an issue. Instead, the space caught between the dancing bodies, interrupted by chairs, light and other shapes provides segmented areas for watching the singular ways that each dancer moves without trying make sense of the ensemble.

A controlled and articulate display of formalist choreography by Benny Ord takes a simple working title, Duo in 3 Parts. It is danced to a live and decidedly loud thrash guitar sound score by Andrew Wilson and Tina Pihema then collapses into a recorded version of Debussy’s ‘Clair de Lune’ performed by Victor Borge, before returning to quieter guitar to close the work. 

Ord is beautiful to watch, even though his leggy behaviour and inordinate sense of the spatial grid is partly at odds with his use of breath. A direct relationship with gravity, both in facial spontaneity and the pull of the earth sees his articulate body as always waiting to inhale. Some of the most interesting moments are caught in the time it takes him to complete one movement and begin the next.

On this occasion he is ably accompanied by Sarah Baron. Her presence in this work is somewhat undermined by a slight monotone dynamic and the digressive focus of the two bodies dancing both across and beside each other. As well as this, Ord’s choice to have a female at work with him may have distorted a rather significant abstract composition.

Movement vocabularies are significant and different in all of the WIP ’10 Showcase #1works. Again I pause to think about the way dance is shaped by the space around it and wonder if some of the more interesting movement interplay of the evening is evoked by a difficult space as much as by choreographic calculation of spatial whim.

Hannah Tasker Poland’s Purge evokes the "world of pain" referred to in ‘Orders from the Dead’, the music by Diamanda Galas to which it is set. Four women in black appear immersed in pain and anguish, their movements compulsive, emphatic; programmed on their bodies as compulsive movement retrieved for the purpose of choreographic form. ‘Purge’ gives way to spatial restrictions with much of the movement too low to the ground for the audience to maintain a visual grip on her world of female pain.

The challenges of mystical concepts and the harsh genius of Galas’ vocalisation overpower Tasker Poland’s emotional truth, making the dance melodramatic and somewhat enslaved by her imagination. This work deserves more time to realise the choreographer’s intuitive links with theme and cult.. In the meantime it is gratifying to see the high level of dance skill, technical competency and expressive range in this group of emerging dancers.

The fourth and final dance, Ruby, not only brings about a decidedly different shape to the evening but showcases some very fine, almost cabaret-like performances from choreographer/ dancers Zahra Killeen-Chance and Emily Campbell. Clever use of sliding red shoes and slippery cardigans as props and sound sources as much as costumes situates ‘Ruby’ as a highlight.

The two dancers present slow, sustained and magical solos with only occasional interactions and unison moments. What becomes fascinating to watch is the separate development of the two female personae and the way this insinuation of progress results as a very fascinating work.

Further shows in the WIP ’10 series are in the last week of June, July and August. All are designed to give choreographers working on ideas a chance to put them out to the community. These are important occasions for the emerging artists, and for the art form too.
For more production details, click on the title above. Go to Home page to see other Reviews, recent Comments and Forum postings (under Chat Back), and News.   


davord gryffyd May 30th, 2010

As a reader who was unable to make it to this production, I must say I agree with Ord’s critique of Molloy’s review. It is difficult to know what she could mean by her comments if one did not attend in person, and even then I suspect that it would be impossible to do so.
Take the sentence dealing with his accompanying dancer, Sarah Baron. How is it possible to describe their performance as being “undermined by a slight monotone dynamic” while at the same time (and, remarkably, in the same sentence) being compromised by a “digressive focus”? To “digress” means to “leave the main subject temporarily”. Molloy also speaks of the two performers “dancing both across and beside each other”. This is hardly the stuff of a “monotone dynamic”. What Molloy has done here is to express too many ideas in a single sentence, without doing the necessary work of serious journalism, which is to explain what she means. Moreover, as Ord points out, sentences that contain positive and negative elements battling against each other for supremacy are unlikely to enlighten the reader.
Also, how can a dancer have an excessive (“inordinate”) sense of space? And how can his breathing contradict this sense? This is all too metaphysical and question begging for the honest reader who was not there and is interested to know what actually went on. And what does “leggy” mean? More details, please.

Benny Ord May 27th, 2010

Felicity, I have read several of your reviews over the past year or so and on every reading have wished that you would SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. 

To my mind a review is supposed to be useful. It is a journalistic discipline which carry's the responsibility of reporting what took place and evaluating its relative merit within the context it is shown and its audience.

Several different types of readers may read this including those who have not seen the show and may want to, those who cannot make it or missed it and wish to find out what it was like, those who have seen it and wish read further discussion, those who have taken part in the show, and those in the industry who receive applications from artists wishing to present their work or receive funding for it.

I don't think it is fair that a reader of a review should have to spend time trying to decipher what it is you are actually saying in such nebulous fashion. Surely the strength of this style of writing is its ability to succinctly report and offer a clear point of view. Yet you make a habit in this and past reviews of placing both seemingly positive and negative evaluations in the same sentence! I do not denote that there is no place for innovation within the discipline of reviewing, however if this your intention it is so far removed from the actual purpose that it loses any validity. 

As a piece of reportage and criticism this 'review' is of no use and is a piece of writing in my view better suited to a personal diary or blog spot.

Make a comment

Wellingon City Council
Aotearoa Gaming Trust
Creative NZ
Auckland City Council