b2ap3_thumbnail_006-drew-mconie.jpg

 

This is a continuation of a conversation between Elise Nuding and Drew McOnie in relation to The McOnie Company’s new production of Drunk. Read Part I here.

Elise Nuding: To my contemporary-dance oriented eye, ‘Drunk’ is a musical theatre show. The choreography itself, its specific physicalities, are very theatrical, and are what I associate with musical theatre. This is not a criticism, but that is how I perceived it…

 

Drew McOnie: I think that’s in the packaging, though! There are certain sections of the show– ‘Scotch and Rum’ and ‘Absinthe’, for example– that were developed by two pure contemporary dancers, and actually taken away from that music and taken away from the packaging, the material itself is not like anything you would see in a musical. It’s about the lens through which you watch it, and by the time you get to those sections, you’re set into the structure of a show that is theatre-based and has the aesthetic of a musical (I mean, even the light bulbs around the frame of the bar– it’s such a musical theatre construct!)…

I mean, as a company, we don’t take ourselves very seriously; we are a fun-loving company, but still very passionate and committed. And the work that we make reflects that outlook. It would be a misconception to think that we want to stand next to, say, Hofesh Schechter in a bill– we’re a completely different breed of dance creature! But at the same time, we have a similar instinct, which is to create and celebrate dance.

EN: It sounds like we’re back to the wide spectrum of what contemporary dance can be. And it can definitely be a lot of different things. But it seems to me that you’re much more interested in bridging a gap between contemporary dance and musical theatre (which, in any case, is a slightly simplified dichotomy) from the angle of process and, dare I say it, philosophy, rather than from an aesthetic, or technical, point of view in terms of the choreography itself.

DM: Yes, it’s not about fundamental material making. It’s about making work which connects. Our artistic aim is to never leave someone feeling artistically unintelligent. The work should be accessible. A lot of people, from both sectors, don’t like the word ‘accessible’– it implies mainstream, and not very ‘cool’. But some of the most exciting things I have ever seen have been ‘accessible’, and that’s because I’ve seen the electricity that spreads through lots of people who may be very different but can all find some relevance, some meaning, in the same work.

EN: Yeah, ‘accessible’ is a tricky thing. And the contemporary dance world can have a bit of an elitist streak to it (although, as we’ve mentioned, the miscommunications go both ways), so I am interested to see whether people more oriented towards the contemporary dance scene are open to getting past the musical theatre framework of the show.

DM: I guess when it comes down to it, I’m just a big fan of dancing– in all different styles, in all different ways, and I want my company to be a celebration of that.

EN: Yes, I mean… I think more openness to other ways of approaching dance within the industry can only be a good thing. I’ve been guilty of being a bit snobby about certain styles of, or approaches to dance in the past… but although I know what I like to do and what I don’t, I don’t see any value in dismissing approaches that don’t happen to fit with my worldviews… even if I don’t agree with all of them... I suppose what I think is important is the intention with which work is made, rather than what it is trying to do, or where it fits on the spectrum stylistically…

DM: And, honestly, as it becomes harder and harder to get funding, the important thing is that people are making work and audiences are responding to it. We have to be careful that we don’t kill off our audiences. And maybe, that audience member who went to see a really mainstream musical might be a little braver the next time and go see something more avant-garde. We need to actively work together to build audiences, not get hung up on misconceptions within the industry…

…I don’t know – a lot of these ideas are very new to me too. I’m still trying to figure things out at the start of the company’s journey, and I’ve been labelled as having these strong opinions on bridging gaps and so on. That’s what the media picks up on: they try to figure out what’s different about you. But the weird thing is that what is different about me is that I’m not trying to be different. I’m just trying to make work that makes me laugh, makes my dancers happy, and that I feel means something. I’m not really on a mission to change the world!

EN: Oh, I think everyone is secretly on a mission to change the world, really! Ok, I have one last question for you: we’ve been talking quite a lot about stereotypes that exist within the dance industry, with different sectors having certain, set ideas about other parts of the field, and about maybe trying to overcome those. And I couldn’t help but notice that there are quite a lot of stereotypes in the show: not so much about the dance industry but of certain personality types, certain social types. And these seem to be played to, rather than subverted. Do you have any comments on that?

DM: Not really…hmmm. Yes, there are quite a lot of stereotypes but – and you might feel differently about this – they were all lovingly done. We worked hard to make sure they came across positively. It’s just an observational thing, really, and the idea is that you can recognise, within these stereotypes, people you have met before.

EN: It comes back to accessibility, then.

DM: Yes, it does. A lot of the humour in the show is based on recognition. But we didn’t set out to make a show about stereotypes. At it’s core, the show is not about any one of the drink characters [editor’s note: each character is a different drink and has a personality representing that drink, which is where the stereotypes really come out]; the focus is the narrative thread of the central character, Ice. But with the different drinks, it’s about alcoholic potency as well; the different alcohol percentages relate to the strength of the caricature/stereotype, and the strength of their effect on the central protagonist. But it’s not that the stereotypes are something you get stamped on the head with and leave with; they are just one element of the whole. But yes, I’m not ashamed to say that it does play to stereotypes.

EN: Gender stereotypes, too.

DM: Gender stereotypes?...quite possibly. But it’s more about each one of the characters, each of the drinks, who were all lovingly approached, and there’s never anyone who should come out of the performance offended by it…Were you offended by it?

EN: Not offended, no…but I was reflecting that stereotypes (gender or otherwise) are something that I expect to see in musical theatre more than contemporary dance… although a lot of contemporary dance is certainly guilty of stereotyping, too, just in a different way…

DM: The thing is, on the financial side, musical theatre has to appeal to a much wider audience– it’s a much bigger business in that sense. And actually, coming up with things that can appeal to a wide spectrum of the general public is harder than most people credit it to be. There is a craft to that, too.

But what you’ve brought up is really interesting… the way into connecting with other people, unless you have a personal experience with somebody… well, by being person specific you can alienate other people. And this is not about being partisan: there is musical theatre which alienates me too. But you’re right, stereotypes are a broad brushstroke, and it’s hard to refine those…

EN: This personal experience thing is such a focus in contemporary dance (another stereotype!); there is often a concern with the subjective experience of the individual, which tends to get prioritised over a more generalised take on a situation. And this comes from a place of self-reflection, of honesty. And I strongly believe that individual experiences of this kind can resonate very powerfully with others…but if they are experiences that others cannot identity with, you’re right, they can be alienating. And then there’s a lot of work that has to be done to find a middle ground between those making the work and those viewing it in order to start dialogue rather than obstruct it– but I suppose not everyone is willing to put that work in all the time.

DM: And what you’re talking about is really important, and has to happen!

EN: It’s a balance between having and valuing both, isn’t it? Work that is ‘accessible’ and work that perhaps takes a little more effort and investment to connect with. And also important is to not dismiss one or the other.

DM: Exactly– it’s about awareness of the two. For example, it’s very hard for me to explain the type of work that you’re talking about to people who are closed off to it just as it’s hard to explain the challenges, structures, and passions that go into musical theatre to people who aren’t open to that. And it’s self-perpetuating, unfortunately. But also unnecessary, because everyone is trying to do similar things, and everyone’s just as passionate and committed….I really don’t know all the answers yet, and I probably never will. The moment you stop learning is the moment you start dying, isn’t it? But this is just the beginning of this particular journey– with the company, and with Drunk. And we could have this conversation in twenty-five years time and we might have completely different opinions on all of this.

EN: I think we should arrange to do just that.

DM: Great.