Review: BodyVox at Pike

March 4, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Chances are, only a handful of people in attendance when Oregon-based BodyVox visited Pike Performing Arts Center on Feb. 28 had ever seen the group before.

Think about that.

Think about the faith exhibited by the act of buying tickets and showing up. Imagine a group of sports fans showing up to see a game having never seen any of the players compete before.

Remarkable, really.

The BodyVox risk yielded mixed results. A first act sequence, featuring a pas de deux between man and a construction crane (whimsically titled 'Deere John'), went over huge with the crowd. In the second act, a very funny film highlighting a couple’s sleep movements joyously tipped onto the silly side. And a final piece blended film and live dance, as an amorphous film background slowly came into focus as a seascape, eventually including the on-stage dancers into the filmed action.

There was remarkable work elsewhere, too, including a piece for two men on a low trapeze and a group dance where it seemed a man was visited by the spirit of a deceased lover (flown by other dancers). The company’s lesser pieces seemed more concerned with individual moments and less with the steps needed to get from one of those moments to the next. A couple-in-bed number started out clever and frustratingly went nowhere, capped by a lame, gimmicky conclusion.

Still, BodyVox is a company worth watching, for its skill, its creativity and its maturity. I mentioned in my e-mail preview that I'd love to see the company tackle a full-length film. With a new wave of movie musicals, isn't it time we also see more innovative dance on screen?

Your thoughts?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT