Posted by

The evening begins with a series of grand jetes. Dancers clothed in tight, black costumes leap out of the wings of the theater, accompanied by spliced music that stutters the word “Que” over and over again. Swift bourres en pointe in parallel are a clear emblem of the piece as the dancers travel around the stage in linear patterns. 

Samantha Bell. Photo by photo by Suzy Petrucci.

ARC At 20: A Twentieth Anniversary Retrospective features the ARC Dance Company and the choreography of Artistic Director Marie Chong, along with fourteen other choreographers across two programs. This evening’s program presented works by Kabby Mitchell III, Marika Brussel, Kirk Midtskog, Marie Chong, Gérard Théorêt, Mark J. Kane, Jason Ohlberg, Ilana Goldman, and Bruce McCormic. Chong founded ARC Dance Productions in 1999 and opened Arc School of Ballet five years later. ARC Dance Productions maintains a 9,000 square foot facility in Ballard, supporting dance education, performances, and ARC Dance Company. 

The opening number, QUE! (1999) is performed in loving memory of Kabby Mitchell III, a Seattle choreographer who passed away in 2017. The program notes explain that, though it was originally a different title, “as the piece formed, Mr. Mitchell decided on Que, meaning “What” in Spanish. ” The title feels appropriate in conveying the unapologetic nature of this unlikely pairing of music and movement. The mood of this piece is lively from the music, which eventually progresses to an upbeat song in Spanish, but the choreography remains geometric and clear cut. The cheerful soundtrack alongside abstract, serious dancing is intriguing. I had the feeling that the steps would break into more playful territory at some point, but this never occurred. QUE! is technique-forward, setting the stage for what is the main focus of most works in the program of contemporary ballet works.

A Short Bouree (2010), choreographed by Kirk Midtskog and danced by Hamilton Nieh, is classical and repetitive in structure. The choreography is mostly comprised of ballet grand allegro, petit allegro, and adagio segments with lots of port de bras. This piece precedes Something Fun (2010), choreographed by Marie Chong and also danced by Nieh. According to the program, the second was conceived as a counterpoint to the first. Chong’s work is more playful choreographically and modern in vocabulary. It begins with Nieh walking out while putting pants on over his ballet tights. He briefly looks down at the ground, then out at the audience, and then immediately walks off stage, a moment that warranted giggles from many audience members. Nieh returns with more clothes on, and then begins a sequence of movement with audible breaths, sweeping hands along the floor, and many grounded pliés. The musicality of this piece is cheeky and more nuanced in nature, whereas A Short Bouree is very even and predictable in its use of music. 

Ethan Schweitzer-Gaslin. Photo by Suzy Petrucci.

Presented back to back in this order, A Short Bouree comes across as restricted in expression. Nieh is more reserved in this piece, seeming to enjoy the movement much less than its modern counterpart. In Something Fun, Nieh opens up to a greater range of expression and appears to be more satisfied with the range of steps he embodies.

Ilana Goldman’s Gaining Ground (2015) is “inspired by the investigation of gender norms and the obstacles women still face in a post-feminist society.” In this piece, men and women are clothed in gendered costumes and given separate choreography for most of the work. It begins with male dancers holding female dancers back as they lean forward out of the wings. This slow-moving holding back continues until the men eventually dropped the women on the floor. 

Goldman’s choreography consists mostly of gendered stereotypes. All of the partnering in the work is male/female with the men performing all of the lifts and the women draping themselves over the men. Men carry women off stage while the women lean over their shoulders, gesturing out desperately. In one section, the men push the women limb by limb across the space, and while the women display resistance, they consistently move in the direction that the men are leading them. 

More than halfway through the piece, the women suddenly push the men to the floor where they stay on their knees while the women dance separately. The women eventually return to help the men off the ground. While I can understand the choreographic intention of this section, it came across as gimmicky and contrived. After so much sameness in display of gender roles, it felt like a decision the dancers were told to act out as some resolution rather than a warranted choreographic choice with a message to convey. It is disappointing that a work meant to investigate gender norms instead focused on presenting gender stereotypes for the majority of the piece without adequate commentary. If choreographers continue to display stereotypes in this way, they are only reinforcing the issues they claim to be addressing. 

Photo by Suzy Petrucci.

Palatial Vestiges (2018) is the closing piece of the program and the clear standout of the night. Choreographed by Bruce McCormick, this piece relies heavily on short solos within unison stillness of a large ensemble. Highlighted in spotlights, dancers individually break out into quick, dynamic choreography with geometric arm placements and stark changes in timing. One soloist, pressing one hand to the floor repetitively, is joined by others until the group evolves into an undulating mass. This image is returned to at the end of the piece, but it accumulates from a duet instead of a solo. This choice creates a recognizable difference that contributes to the narrative of the work. Community leadership can be collaborative, not just followers to a single leader.

Overall, ARC at 20 highlighted what seems to be the main focus of the company: presenting ballet technique at the front and center of its choreographic works. The caliber of the dancers is impressive, but the program lacks the ability to be captivating over time. Many of the pieces were incredibly similar in choreographic structure and dynamics. That, in addition to vocabulary that rarely strayed from codified contemporary ballet, made for a long show. As ARC continues forward from this notable anniversary, they would do well to challenge themselves and their audience with more variety in work as they continue to grow. 


  1. I attended this performance and had a very different experience. I found it entertaining and varied, and didn’t think it felt long at all. The music was incredibly diverse, and included some very creative choices. I liked that the choreography used ballet vocabulary so exclusively. Actually that was one of my favorite aspects of the program. It is, after all, a ballet company! I felt that the pieces chosen showcased a broad range of choreographic voices and dance styles while showing off the dancers’ exceptional skill and versatility.

    The dance I enjoyed the most, Marika Brussel’s Skin of the Sea, had beautiful partnering with some gorgeous lifts. I would like to see that one longer, expanded upon, with some added variations. I also really enjoyed the dance that opened the Second act, Mark Kane’s Of Passion You Have Plenty. It was a fun and energetic, and the music was stuck in my ear for the rest of the evening.

    Where the author and I agree is on the dancers: they’re so good! Beautiful dancers with gorgeous lines and impressive technique. The ability to attract that kind of talent says a great deal about the company. ARC is a valuable asset to the local dance community and I look forward to their next 20 years.

  2. Wow, the reviewer’s experience of the show was very different than mine. It makes me wonder if she was watching the same show. There was a lot of diversity of form including jazz, modern dance through classical ballet. Madsen’s “Black and White”, for example, was laden with jazz technique. “Milk and Honey” was heavily modern dance. The message behind Goldman’s “Gaining Ground”, enjoyed through the lens of women’s struggle against gender norms rather than in assessment of choreographic snippets, hit the nail right on the head for anyone having worked in a traditional patriarchal organization. Finally, I don’t think there is a codified contemporary ballet technique so it’s odd to claim the pieces didn’t stray from it. The review reads as though the author doesn’t really like contemporary ballet (and he/she seemed to force fit every piece in that category) and isn’t best able to review such a diverse offering.

  3. I don’t agree with this review of the performance. The performance was creative, expressive and at times very innovative. Our family of 3 all felt the same about what was a beautiful night of dancing. Before the show Marie had a Q&A and I specifically ask her about her process in selecting the programs to celebrate the past 20 years. She explained that it was difficult and it wasn’t always a process of just selecting her favorite pieces. Rather there were pieces that she didn’t necessary like but felt it reflected ARC’s past 20 years. I don’t believe the intent of the show was about pushing the limits of choreography but rather it was a retrospective of ARC. And I believe that was accomplished wonderfully!!!

  4. The 20th Anniversary program was a credit to ARC Dance and the director for providing this wonderful venue for the dance world and it’s fans. ARC has proven over the years to present a combination of the highest quality dancers and innovative dance forms. Program B was an example and one of the most impressive performances to date. ARC’s signature contemporary ballet style paired side by side with abstract form and music made an alluring and exciting evening for all who attended this program. The talented dancers and choreographers showed the strength and simplicity in their art.

Comments are closed.