Amelia Reeber's this is a forgery Unsettling, Ambiguous

this is a forgery, Photo © Tim Summers

Last night we went to the premiere of Amelia Reeber’s this is a forgery full-length solo piece at Erickson Theatre, and the first - and most striking - thing we read in the program was “This performance is dedicated [to] the Feminine.” Maybe it would have been better if we hadn’t read that; as a result we viewed Reeber’s performance piece through this “Feminine” lens, helplessly drawing frequent parallels to the ideas of feminine mystique, power and obligation.

Or maybe the tone of the show was set more succinctly by its opening: video imagery of sperm shooting into the vaginal canal, overlaid with a male voice singing “Fucking You Tonight.”

this is a forgery was developed in part with Reeber’s $10,000 winnings from the 2009 A.W.A.R.D. Show!. It’s like Reeber received a grant with absolutely no strings attached. Or if Reeber had a stack of extra cash at hand to fund a project. The question is: what would an artist choose to do if she could choose to do whatever she wanted?

This creative freedom is palpable in this is a forgery. Granted, we didn’t see this piece in its seminal form, back when it was work shopped at On the Boards’ Northwest New Works Festival last June. And there are strong similarities between this piece and Reeber’s Dreamlife solo, her submission for the A.W.A.R.D. Show!; indications of Reeber’s modus operandi when it comes to solo work. But overall, this is a forgery felt like a piece free from obligation; a whimsical presentation of Reeber’s artistic impulses.

this is a forgery is more performance art than dance, and divided into two distinguishable “acts” or parts. In part one, the stage, oddly scattered with unrelated props, is backlit by a video screen. While Reeber’s alta-characters - and a cat - play behind her onscreen, she gyrates, reclines, shouts in a sexy black nightie-type dress, with her legs wrapped in bandages up to the knee. The video antics tend to distract from Reeber’s real-time persona, though we liked the clever interaction between the screen and the stage, particularly as Reeber unwinds her leg bandages in a captivating wiggle, the onscreen cat stalking, then pouncing (to chuckles from the audience).

Part two is more normal, and less interesting. Reeber changes into another girlish dress, the video elements disappear, and it becomes a more standard music-dance-lighting solo. The movement here has increased elements of femininity, the soundtrack calms with meandering trumpets. The show’s conclusion is indeterminate - do we clap now?

Other than a niggling feeling that Reeber is trying to say something about life as a woman, we left a bit confused and unsettled. Is this is a forgery meant to represent a woman’s fractured psyche? Is its title a clue to the piece’s unfocused purpose? How did other people feel about it? What does it all MEAN!?

Regardless, this piece is an example of how financial freedom translates to artistic output. With another season of the A.W.A.R.D. Show! already scheduled (again with $12,000 slated in prize money), we’re interested to see how this annual trend helps to develop Seattle’s contemporary dance community.

April 23, 24, 30, May 1, 8 p.m. // Erickson Theatre Off Broadway, 1524 Harvard Avenue // $15 general admission, $12 students, tickets here

Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Amy Mikel in Arts & Events on April 23, 2010 2:00 PM

Comments [rss]

amelia

hello, this is for all the respondents, your comments about the how you feel about the improvisational elements in this piece, must come from either your intimate knowledge of my dancing history, intimate knowledge of the structure of my piece, a vast historical knowledge of dance...are you that savvy on all 3 levels that you identified and are qualified to make the remarks you did? I'm guessing not. please expand your ideas of what improvisation is please. there are rigorous improvisers who use improvising as a way to step up to the dance, to break their patterns, be highly aware of the present moment and moving within that, as a way to keep the dance alive and in an active state, active questioning... improvising well is harder than doing set material for the most part. it requires more of you as a performer and i find that it keeps me from going on autopilot. that is my quick perspective. just know there is more out there and if you want to learn about it, you can. best, Amelia

odawni

Hi Amelia,

Thanks for wanting to better understand what was meant by my comment about improvisation and your piece. If I am reading your comments correctly, I see that my comment was misconstrued, so thanks for opening up the space for communication about this.

I'm not familiar with your work, this particular piece, nor am I a dance historian. However, I have great respect for dancers from every background. I have been practicing a dance called Nia for about three years, and one of its fundamental ideas, and a significant reason why it has become a central part of my life, is its element of 'free dance'. So, I appreciate free-form and the power of improvisation. I think allowing your body to move in the moment is a beautiful practice to share, and is a kind thing to allow yourself to do. Our culture is so caught up in prescription, practice and perfection. I think we need to embrace, appreciate, practice and support improvisation more.

I don't believe that you have to be familiar with an artist, an artistic piece, or art history to appreciate creativity and innovation. I enjoyed your piece and found it refreshing. I think there should be more work like this! True: your performance left me feeling discombobulated and curious, but I don't believe these are bad things. In fact, I think these are good qualities and ones that the public needs to interact with more often!

I'm a huge proponent of improvised creativity. I think it's a more honest way to portray art. Knowing now that parts (or all?) of your piece were improvised, doesn't discount the value of your art in the slightest to me. It makes the experience of watching you dance and move more real -- as we are holding the space with you, and you are carrying us through it.

I hope I've answered your questions. I'm happy to talk about it more, if you're interested.

Thanks for your work,

Odawni

PS. The leg-wrap unraveling anchor dance was fantastic.

amymikel

thanks odawni! i felt the same way about the improvisational elements.

hope to run into you again soon :)

amy

amelia

do you know what parts were improvised? if it is improvised does it make it less real and valid? if one structures a piece with specificity and it constantly moving and learning within that structure, it deepens the work and keeps it a living question and exploration. it is okay to be discombobulated or confused sometimes. we don't have to 'get' everything on a conscious linear level. trust your own experience and reactions to it without insecurity or needing someone to validate it for you.

odawni

Hi Amy,

I enjoyed reading your article. I think it captures the experience of the show really well, at least, it sounds like our interpretations of it (un-interpretations?) are pretty well aligned. I left with discombobulating confusion and curiosity.

As I watched Amelia throughout the show I couldn't help but think, "is every single movement really choreographed, or is this chick improvising?" Maybe that's the element of forgery? Aah, will we ever know?

Anyway, nice article.

Thanks!

Odawni (AKA gourmet cat food chick)