A study of the performance of the lucky plush dance in the product cinderbox 2.0

A study of the performance of the lucky plush dance in the product cinderbox 2.0 The Lucky Plush dance company graced the stage with their innovative and abstract performance of Cinderbox 2.0, a work that â€Å"explores reality television and the anxiety of hyper-networked America.† Although the term dance theatre has been mentioned in readings and lectures, never before has the literal combination of dance and theatre through choreography and text been seen on a live stage.The performance was rather complex, with several sensory media present at once to appeal to the audience. This essay will discuss the union of text, choreography, and multimedia in the piece, as well as the social commentary it attempts to make. Text and choreography creatively come together in Cinderbox 2.0 through the company’s twofold role of dancing and story telling. Throughout the work the performers switch off from dance to speech delivery; without one, the other would neither make sense nor be as effective to the audience. At the very beginning a female member delays the program by talking on her cell phone longer than expected, for example. After her monologue with the phone, she jumped right into her position (pushing someone out of the way in the process) and the dancing commenced. Near the end of the performance the company came together to lift one member at a time while that person spoke about a social issue in a lifted dancer’s position; this combination demonstrates another combination of text and choreography. The aesthetics of the movements complemented by the short monologues in succession augment the purpose of Lucky Plush’s performance. The structures of the text and choreography are both similar and different in the way that they were usually presented in a way in which they took turns dominating the stage at any particular moment in the piece; however they varied by length throughout and sometimes had no relation with one another. The ridiculous discussion of Fiji brand water, for example, would be separated from the dance and intertwined between the movements. Also, the moment in which the woman who always stops while attempting to sing a song (and asks to try again) occurred many times, but between dance breaks. Finally, a similarity in structure between text and choreography was that two or groups of two people usually performed both. The frequent pair work in the production further defines how it is indeed dance theatre. In addition, there were some moments in which dance and text were being performed at the same time on stage. An example of this is the illusion of the male and female dancer watching some sort of media(likely the television). Another male dancer was dancing in front of them, as if they were watching him; however the movements sometimes did not match up with what they were watching (although in the beginning there was a mention of fishing while the dancer was insinuating the activity). But every once in a while, when the female performer became excited at the sight of her favorite part of whatever she was watching, the dancer would correspond with her by shaking his head rapidly in front of her. There definitely was some abstract connection between the text and choreography here as well. All of these examples of the combination and connection of text and choreography compile into one thing: dance theatre. One cannot call Cinderbox 2.0 simply dance or theatre because aspects of each are seen within the performance; they function together to create modern dance with a purpose: in this case, a social commentary. At some points the dance and the theatrical pieces of the work do not appear to relate to one another, but at other points they would not be regarded by the audience as highly and mentally if they were not together. What is certain, however, is that dance and theatre are both used to entertain; therefore their combination into dance theatre augments the entertainment factor even further. This assists in conveying more prominently the ideas of the piece as a whole. Lucky Plush’s effort in displaying a seemingly chaotic performance does not go without purpose. The spectacle was a social commentary of a hyper-networked America, and how various media, especially television, plays a vital role. It all began with the woman on her phone, delaying the commencement of the dance. Later the pair watching ‘television’ becomes completely enthralled in the program by coming face to face with the dancer personifying said program. The Fiji water discussions and satirical individual interviews/commentaries (which were delivered while being lifted in a dancer’s position) expressed the characters’ self-appointed authority over the featured discussion of topics; they were only known as a result of the superficial information given by the various media to which they have been exposed. This moment in the performance was further highlighted with the singing of â€Å"We are the Champions† by Queen, increasing the idea that pe ople, as a result of media, develop a sense of false and undeserving pride. The performance ends with a fight in dance form: the result of empowerment by the media that leads to competition. Cinderbox 2.0 was a very difficult piece to decipher; it was filled with abstract and (at times) confusing details. Lucky Plush really succeeded in involving the audience by looking right at them and at one point in the production calling someone seated off stage amidst the crowd. They brought the spectators in to realize the consequences of being hyper-networked and excessively influenced by the media. It seems like the theatre-half of this work of dance theatre was more effective in conveying the underlying message. This performance demonstrates that any aspects of art can be combined to deliver something entertaining and insightful to an interested audience.