“antithesis”
Gesel Mason Performance Projects
Dance Place
Washington, DC
January 6, 2017
by George Jackson
© 2017 by George Jackson
© 2017 by George Jackson
Photo: Kelly Shroads Photography
After what seemed an overture of fragmentary depictions of erotic and pornographic actions, Mason’s first order of business was to established a catalogue of commercial sex dances: chorine strutting, bumps-&-grinds, pole dancing, lap dancing. Quite a comprehensive collection, it was shown in an adroit and seamless succession of brief scenes. Key performers seemed professional at specific tasks. Yet the truly graphic was skirted by a dose of contrast. What the contrast consisted of was varied. It might be just an ironic smile by the gal twirling tit tassels or a knowing wink from the one bouncing bare buns. Or, contrast could be in the person of a non-professional. An awkward, hesitant, tomboyish gal imitating a suave stripper provided one scene with analytic distancing, but it was also touching to see the stripper teach the tomboy. The passivity of male “customers” in response to actions by the “commercial” dancers proved to be comical. Most of the sex dancers wore shoes with very high platforms and heels. So did Mason, who strode around these scenes in a flower print dress while commenting into a hand held microphone. She labeled some of the actions, introduced the main dancers and differentiated between “eros” (which ought to be a joyous, humane emotion) and “porno” (which is commercial and a corrupt sensation).
The second thing that happened in “antithesis” was the fusion of motions from the sex dances with undulations, gyrations, hip-hop, gaga and other forms of body limbering. Some of it was done standing still or striding through space or lying down and the performers worming their way across the floor. These fusions were not purely technical exercises: feelings were displayed and emotional situations arose. Dancers by themselves invested their activity with determination. Relationships among two or more dancers developed and changed. Of the eight active performers in Mason’s cast, only one was male, and I was aware of that almost right away. Later, I realized how racially diverse these dancers were, how current the Mason group is.
The most memorable passage was a solo for Mason herself, just prior to the floor crisscrossing finale of “antithesis”. She was dressed plainly in practice wear and had stepped off her platforms. Mason shook, and kept shaking. She shook while standing erect, leaning forward, lying down on her back and breathing heavily, sitting up and, at last, standing again. Different emotions seemed to issue from her – anger, tenacity, relief. Was she thinking of the Shakers, who sublimate sexual desire by vibrating, and of Doris Humphrey’s great dance about them? Whatever else it might have been, Mason’s solo seemed an act of self sacrifice.
One of the first choreographers to depict female sexuality unabashedly was Martha Graham. She did so tersely. There is a hard edge to Graham’s contractions and even to her releases. Her spirals slice sharply and there is granite in the Graham stance. Mason’s female movement is predominantly pliant, even soft - including that for her male soloist, John Gutierrez. In building a work of total dance theater, Mason melds ingredients and scenes more than the clean cutting Liz Lerman. Of the fifteen soundtracks for this piece, just one is classical music (Maria Callas singing the “Ave Maria” from Verdi’s opera “Otello”). Speech, both lecturing and conversation, was important in “antithesis” and I wish the available microphone had been used more consistently at this performance. Still, the constant onslaught of sensations conveyed Mason’s messages and the urgency she invests in them.