|
The Salon Interview, page 2 How do you come up with your ideas for dances? It's always from music, always, always, always. The one exception being "Behemoth," which has no music at all. I listen to music because I love it and occasionally something sticks out that I think would be a good dance. That's where I start. I study the score and listen, think, then make up a dance. Usually, it's the music that determines who is in it, how long it is and what it's like. I do almost no choreographic homework; I do only musical homework. What is your musical homework? Listening, studying scores and doing related research on the period or context, or other pieces by the same composer. For Gluck's "Orfeo ed Euridice," the French version has a tenor as Orpheus. But I liked the original version better, with a countertenor, which is the one we're doing here. You have to read Ovid's "Metamorphoses" and Virgil's "Georgics." You read about period theater of Gluck's time and dancing and style. Then you ignore it or employ it. What were the challenges of "Orfeo ed Euridice"? It's difficult music because it's very simple. Why is that? It's a big opera, but there isn't much counterpoint. It's pretty fundamental. That's why it's so clear. But it's harder to make up something simple than something incredibly complicated. It's easier to baffle than to illuminate. You mean because there was so little to go on for the choreography? No, the dancing is no problem, just that the piece itself -- as Gluck meant it to be -- is very direct and concise and succinct. He was reacting against the opera trends of the time, trying to figure out how to pare the work down to present just the facts. There isn't much leeway to add video monitors and flying equipment and lasers, nor is there any reason to. To do it simply and clearly without being incredibly boring is a challenge. How do you prepare for the pieces once you've chosen the music? I study the score and I think about possible ideas that may happen, the possible traffic or geometry or tone of something. Then I really just make it up in the room with the dancers. When I didn't have a full-time company, when I was just starting out and did maybe two concerts a year, I made up everything on myself at home. Then I would teach what I had made up to other dancers. You mean all the parts? Yeah, all the material. You end up just having people doing only what you would do. In this case, I make it up on those people. I mean I'm still making it up, it still comes from me, but it isn't exactly what I would do if I were improvising at home, because that's not very interesting generally. It feels fabulous, but that doesn't mean it looks like anything or has any sort of value really, structurally. Do your dancers ever make suggestions? [Morris makes a face as if he's just swallowed a 10-pound lemon.] I don't think I can get that face on the tape. I get them all tangled up and say, "How can you get out of this?" Or I'll describe an effect I want to achieve, but I don't know if goes right-left-right or turn or run. I just know I want something that feels like this effect kinesthetically and that's your trial and error and occasionally a little bit of improvisation, but not much. The dancers don't make suggestions that you might incorporate into a piece. No. If they made a sug-ges-tion, I would scre-eeam. I occasionally ask for help, but that's different. In "Orfeo ed Euridice," because we're doing a lot of shows and the dancers participate as 'actors' in a certain way, I choreographed loosely so that you can do something or not do it or you can do it with whatever arm or whatever leg or whatever tempo you like. So when you see it the first time, it's a piece, but the second time, it varies. You can change where you go or how you do something within a pretty constricted range. It's not improvised? No, it's not improvised, but there are choices to be made. I wanted to keep that so that people actually had to participate instead of saying I go here now and the movement looks like it's on tracks, like it's a ride or something. They have to actually listen and participate and make choices spontaneously, although the choices are limited. And it's difficult to make it different and fresh every night. Within certain restrictions. Within the tightest restrictions in the world! How do you find your dance sources? Years ago -- 12, 15 years ago -- I used to make direct quotes from other dance forms that I loved, but because of how I live, it's become just information I draw on. I can do something that seems like something you recognize but isn't. It's not an homage, but an assimilation. I can make a dance happen that looks as if it's 300 years old, but it's actually a day old. But it wouldn't be recognizable as coming from a Balkan folk dance, say, or Balinese dance? First of all, if you do any combination of step and hop, you're quoting someone's national dance. If you do hop, step, hop, someone's been doing that for thousands of years because there aren't that many steps. You don't go on expeditions to research dance styles? We see them because we travel all the time -- like the darling waiters after hours in this bar in Turkey doing beautiful dances I sort of knew some of, but to see them doing them in that context is a fabulous thing. It doesn't mean I'll use it verbatim. I'm actually going to India for a few weeks to just be there, to hear music and watch dancing. It doesn't mean I will create an Indian dance, just that I will have had that experience. What choreographers have influenced you? Every single one I've ever seen, really. But the people I worship are [George] Balanchine and [Merce] Cunningham. There are many people whose work I like some of. And also, you get so much from what you see and hate or just think didn't work. It's like I see a move in a dance and I say: "Omigod, that is the stupidest thing I've ever seen." But it doesn't mean I can't adapt it. It could be a really good idea, but it doesn't work in this piece by this person so let me try the idea or the action in a different context and maybe it will be perfectly appropriate. It's not exactly the same as shoplifting, but it's influence. What would be an example of a dance move you've hated? There's a particular move I've seen in so many dances which I hate, where men pick up women and the women curl up into little ba-biees? You carry them around like you're protecting them or something? It's like oooh -- she's an adult, leave her alone. In "L'Allegro," I put that exact move in because I think it's not a bad move, it's just that contextually, it usually makes me sick because it's an icky male-female thing that I don't like. So I put it in, contextually it makes perfect sense to me and I love it in that way. How do you put it in? In context of what's happened before and after, it's beautiful instead of repulsive, at least in my mind. I'm sure the person who used it that time thought it was beautiful, too. I think freedom is very, very important and not to be relinquished. I agree, but why did you say that? I like to think that every choreographer means what he or she does and has worked really hard. Whether I like it or not doesn't deprive it of its importance or seriousness. It means you can do whatever you want. I don't have to like it. I'm speaking about people who would edit or censor or convert and I'm opposed to that in every single way. That's all. What would be an example? You mean you don't want to pass judgment on another choreographer? Oh, I certainly do, but that's from watching it intelligently and with discrimination so that I'm making a decision not just based on I like you or I don't like you, but does that work in context, does it make sense? There are people who do very good work, but I don't like it. It's a big world is all I'm saying. There's room for a lot of things. But that move where the men cradle the women is anathema because it casts women in the role of needing protection from the dominant male? When I do it the women start by doing that to the men. The men are little babies, which is beautiful, and then they switch so that by the time the men lift the women, we've already seen it as women lifting men, which makes more sense. How do you find the dancers in your group? What do you look for? I have auditions, which I hate, so I don't do that very often. Why do you hate auditions? Because they're humiliating and debasing. I learned that as a dancer auditioning for people. Now when I audition people, I give them as equal an opportunity as possible even though it's pretend. I don't cut people because they're ugly or something. Very often, I'll see somebody whom I'll find interesting, or someone I've seen perform, or in a workshop. We all have to get along because it's a small company and we're traveling all the time. How many people are in the company? Sixteen and me, then various management and technical crew. You have to be an adult. I only work with adults. Imagine that, a dance company of adults. Is there such a thing? And people have to understand how my work relates to music or else there's no working together. It doesn't mean you have to think like I do. But there's no balance of body type or ethnicity you're looking for in the group? No, there's no quota. I like it to be roughly 50/50, male and female. Actually the company is nine women and seven men, but that's sort of the world population isn't it? But your troupe looks a great deal different from what many audiences consider a "normal" ballet troupe. The dancers don't all look the same, they have personalities and character. What are you trying to get at by having them be so diverse? Nothing in particular. One reason my dancers are more substantial than classical ballet dancers is the nature of the work. Women in my company do more work with their upper bodies than women in ballet companies do. The physical labor of it changes your body. I'm not trying to have a freak show. You'd be surprised how many gifted dancers can't do my work. They just can't coordinate it or get it. When I find new dancers, I'm not replacing the person who fits the costume. Who cares about that? How interesting is it to have everybody look exactly alike? I mean if you go to a party, do you want everyone to be just like you? Ugh! How pompous and irritating that would be. What distinguishes your approach from that of other choreographers? I'm not sure, a big part is dealing with music the way I do. We dance to music and that's considered sort of passé. What? People dance to music all over the world. But for some reason, that went away. I mean I worship Merce Cunningham, who has his Cageian approach to dance, which I love. But it's because he's a great artist. Very often, it's too obvious or too old-fashioned to align physical activity with musical activity. I disagree with that. I love it. I think it's great. And also the virtuosity of my company is not in the fireworks, you know the giant leaps and lifts and flashy stuff. I'm more interested in the workings of choreography and personal interaction. I don't mean like a group hug. Of course it's artifice because it's theater and you're paying to watch it. It's not just natural behavior. But I want the behavior that's unnatural to seem natural. I can tell when people are looking at each other on stage if they're actually looking at each other or just facing in opposite directions. How do you get them to bring that emotion across? Practice. I say, "You're faking it, you're lying. I don't believe you for a second. Do it again." Do you have any overriding concerns or themes in your work? Well, I'm not a politician. I'm not interested in teaching anyone a lesson. If through watching and listening to something, you question yourself or experience something you haven't before, that's fabulous. But there's not a menu for that. There's not an itinerary -- at this point everyone will cry, at this point everyone will laugh. You don't have social issues underlying your work? There's no secret subtext ever. Sometimes there's a structural conceit I find fascinating, but people don't have to know about it to be satisfied by a piece. It's like seeing something and saying, "I recognize that from earlier in the dance and it feels different to me now." That's how music is constructed: A repetition of something is changed the second time. The second time could be sadder or louder or more something else. People go through something from beginning to end, the performers do and the audience does. If someone were to read in an interpretation to a dance that suggested concerns about AIDS, for instance, would that be something you intended? It's the same as the question of influences. I feel a certain way as a person in the world and I can't help but have that reflected in my work. But that doesn't mean I'm trying to tell anybody anything. I'm all for freedom of interpretation, too. That's why I read reviews -- "Oh, that's interesting-- and wrong!" How has your style changed over the past 10 years or so? I've gotten better. It doesn't please everybody, but it pleases me. I only do what I mean. It's not nearly as florid or overbuilt, overdesigned. It's very much sparer than it used to be. What about the kinds of subjects you deal with? Are they less comic? Probably there are fewer jokes or at least things that people laugh at. But people have always laughed at my work in places that surprise me very much. I mean I do funny things, I know that. But because people are trained by reading that I'm zany or something, then you go to the theater expecting that to happen. Oh, come on, just watch it. Shut up and watch. Laugh if it cracks you up, but not to let me know that you understand what I'm doing. I don't need that sort of response. It's prepped. You don't see yourself as zany? No. That's crap. Of course not. That was a few years ago. How do you see yourself now? I just know it's different. First of all, if you ever imagined my work was zany, you were wrong, whoever you are. Has dance overall in the United States changed in the past 10 years? Has it become more or less accessible? It's worse. Accessible is not important because very often, very, very bad art is accessible. Walt Disney is very accessible and very, very manipulative and dangerous as a cultural force. It's fascinating, it's beautifully done. They're geniuses. I don't like it. There's less work, fewer companies working. There's less money and less interest and less talent than there should be. Why is that? I don't know why. The dance isn't interesting or good enough. I can't speculate. There are companies I've watched for many years and now I don't like to watch them dance any more. Overall you feel there's a lot less inventiveness and creativity? No, because I wouldn't say that inventiveness and creativity are the same thing as good art. You can be inventive and creative and do crappy stuff. Just because you mean it doesn't mean it's good. Just because you're tired doesn't mean you gave a good performance. It's art, not sport. Have audiences changed? Are they more accepting? People are very accepting, but that doesn't mean they want to see it again. They have to enjoy it, to be entertained. That can be like horror, like movies. I mean movies are very entertaining because everybody gets blown up and is dismembered. People enjoy that. Do you? Not much. Occasionally. It's a very important genre and people love it. Great. It may not be good art, but it's entertaining. If they accept something, that doesn't mean they will want to go back again or bring somebody else. That's why I think some tawdry work that is very eye-pleasing, but not good, draws people. There's a lot of that. There's nothing left when you go home. It's like the movies. You forget a beautiful explosion in a movie right away. And you don't forget something that's a deeper art experience. It doesn't mean that good dance has to change your life. It just means that you have to be affected somehow. Otherwise why bother? Read a book. Take a nap. Sometimes taking a nap would be more valuable than sitting through some show or other. What about government subsidies in the U.S. for dance, are they improving or worsening? It's never been very much. The amount is minuscule. It's a tragedy that people don't think enough about their art. I don't think it should be a charity. I don't think it should be: "I am an artist, give me money." I don't understand that. There must be some merit. The arts are seen as such a joke of a luxury in the States and that's so weird. That's what you snip off first because it's elite or effete. Has it hurt dance? Sure, of course it has. And it's hurt every museum and every string quartet and every bad performance artist. Are the attitudes and subsidies more forthcoming in Europe? Yes, but very often people have too much money and too much time to work on something and so they ruin it. It's like checking the soufflé too many times. That would never happen in the States. You never have too much money and too much time to overwork something. Is there a difference between the homosexual movements in the U.S. and in Europe? Does there seem to be less desire in Europe to be openly accepted by society at large? It's because they're way behind in Europe. More European people are content to pass as straight and I find that awful. It's a choice, you can do whatever you want. As opposed to outing, for example. You can't hurt anybody, that's the rule. Americans generally feel they have to call attention to that, to enforce it, to make progress with human rights. They're correct to do so. I don't feel any which way about queer marriages. Recognition by society is important, but I don't know how grave an issue it is. Many people do this, but I don't understand basing a queer marriage on a breeder marriage, a straight marriage. I don't like that because of the history of marriage in religion and the property thing, of a wife being the property of the husband. Even though people don't marry for those reasons any more -- I hope -- it's there, it's in the church, it's in society. That's a nuclear family. It's wrong. I'm not interested in modeling my life on a straight person's so-called normal life. Maybe Europeans make the argument that we don't want to be as overt as American homosexuals because they don't want to start a backlash as is happening in the U.S.? That's because they're chicken, with the exception of Denmark and Holland. And also Eurofeminism is a strange thing. In the States, there's a generation of young women who are neo-, post-, anti-feminist who are putting aprons on -- and their mothers fought very hard for their rights. Europe is not even to the first stage of that. Isn't that sort of alarming? No, every generation does that. They should. They don't disallow their mothers from feeling the way they do. As long as there's a choice, I won't object to your choice, if I don't have to do it myself. That's the whole point. If you're in a society where people can make you, you should move. Or change something. Change it or leave it. That's enough of that. You used to have a reputation as an outspoken wild man. Has that toned down? That's a question I can't accept. It has no application at all. I was just responding to things I've read. Journalists. Yeah. I'd rather talk about my work than what people think about my work. It's like I decided to have a certain style of personality and that's my trademark. That's very insulting. Very insulting. I didn't mean to bring it up in that way. Not from you, from other journalists. It's pointless. It's sloppy journalism for one thing. How would you characterize yourself? I won't. I mean everything I do. I don't adjust that very much. I swear less in front of my mother, but everybody does that. The Mark Morris Dance Group goes on tour October 8 to November 13 in Princeton, NJ; Albuquerque, NM; Ann Arbor, MI; Annapolis, MD; Seattle, WA; Philadelphia; Fairfax, VA; Clearwater and West Palm Beach, FL. The group will stage "The Hard Nut," a comic book send-up of "The Nutcracker," in Berkeley, California from December 14 to 21. |