Looking Back, Moving Forward

One of the most important questions for any director who inherits a dance company from its founding choreographer is how to keep the repertory alive. Stagnation—simply repeating the same cluster of increasingly familiar works—is not really an option. Dances die if they are performed too often just as they do if they are left on the shelf for too long. Changes creep in, obscuring the original style and intention. Also, dancers need new challenges. This is why companies have tended to commission new works from contemporary choreographers. The Paul Taylor Dance Company has done this, as have the Martha Graham Dance Company, the Trisha Brown Dance Company, Tanztheater Wuppertal, José Limón, and many others. In this way, the company keeps moving forward. The quality of the new work varies.

Paul Taylor and Eileen Cropley in “Churchyard.” Photograph by Jack Mitchell, courtesy of the Paul Taylor Dance Company

Sometimes, though, the repertory itself offers a different way: the revival of forgotten works from an earlier era that have long since fallen out of the repertory. If a piece hasn’t been seen in decades, it is almost as if it were new. And the very process of reconstructing it—using archival materials, film, research, dancers’ recollections—lends a new energy, illuminating the choreography from within. Reconstructing a dance is both an act of rediscovery and of creation. There will always be gaps in the record: a moment in the video that is simply impossible to make out, a missing page of notes, a passage that no one quite remembers. What did this step look like? Is it reminiscent of a moment in another dance? Does it hold within it some essence of the time and situation in which the dance was created? By asking such questions, stagers, and dancers, think deeply about a dance and make it anew.

On June 17–22 at the Joyce Theater, the Paul Taylor Dance Company will bring back two Taylor dances not seen since the early 1970s. The earliest, “Tablet,” from 1960, was made for Pina Bausch (a member of the company from 1960–1962) and Dan Wagoner, and has whimsical designs by Ellsworth Kelly. “Churchyard” (1969) is one of Taylor’s studies of human nature, as well as an indictment of the hypocrisy of religion. Both works reveal aspects of Taylor that are simultaneously familiar and surprising.

I spoke with Michael Novak, director of Taylor, recently about the revivals.

You're bringing back “Tablet” and “Churchyard.” How does bringing back these dances fit into your larger mission for the Taylor Company?

Michael Novak: I'm obsessed with this notion of what's timeless and timely, and the intersection of the two. When I go back into the vault of Paul Taylor's repertoire, I’m amazed at how avant-garde some of the work is. If you were to put a contemporary choreographer’s name on it, people would think it was brand new, boundary-pushing work. Take “Tablet,” for example, with designs by Ellsworth Kelly. The use of color and shapes is abstract, geometric, curious. I think it lends itself quite well to the now.

Tell me about “Churchyard”—what is it like?

Paul and Betty had discussed reviving “Churchyard” many years ago. There’s only one video, and the quality is poor. Bettie de Jong [who joined the company in 1962] was adamant: “I can bring it back, but I’ll need alumni, especially Nicholas Gunn.” In some parts of the video the light is too bright and you can’t see anything. And Paul’s notes are very hard to read. But Jennifer Tipton’s [the lighting designer] notes were a kind of Rosetta Stone. So, between the video, Tipton’s notes, and the original score, which includes choreographic notes, we figured we could do it. I'm stitching all of that together to bring back “Churchyard.”

From left: Daniel Williams, Earnest Morgan, and Nicholas Gunn in “Churchyard.” Photograph by Jack Mitchell, courtesy of the Paul Taylor Dance Company

Is “Churchyard” one of Paul’s serious dances?

It's in two sections, sacred and profane. The “Sacred” section is formalist, structured, even angelic. The men are shirtless, in tights. The women wear nun-like habits. Bettie de Jong wore a cape. It’s very elegant, and set to a collection of medieval music. Then there is this soundtrack that suggests a kind of impending doom, with a driving pulse. The “Profane” section uses the same structure, but everyone is in full-bodied unitards with lumps—very grotesque.

An allusion to the Black Death?

Exactly. It's the decay of the sacred. In terms of style, you’ll see certain lifts from “Sacre du Printemps,” and patterns from “Profiles” and “Roses.” It all points back to “Churchyard.” The dance is like a deconstruction of medieval religion. The movement becomes visceral, heavy, distorted, quirky Paul. You have these two styles competing against each other.

“Tablet” is much earlier.

Very early. You'll clearly see the influence of Martha Graham. It was made for Pina Bausch and Dan Wagoner. Pina was only in the company a couple of years, but she had this very specific way of moving. She was very angular, very thin, and Paul choreographed specifically for those qualities. So there are a lot of things with elbows and shapes that are very crisp, very clear. He was interested in the contrast between Pina and Dan Wagoner, who was a little bit shorter, thicker, broader. It's an interesting dichotomy.

These pieces have been out of the repertory for so long that they're almost new.

Exactly. Bringing them back expands the repertoire and the conversation. People are obsessed with what’s new, but I don't think the new should be limited to just the year in which a piece was made. If someone hasn’t seen a piece, it’s new to them. It keeps audiences guessing, and I like that.

Akiko Kanda and Paul Taylor in “Tablet,” 1960. Photograph by Helga Gilbert, courtesy of the Paul Taylor Dance Company

Dan Wagoner and Elizabeth Walton in “Tablet,” 1960. Photograph by Helga Gilbert, courtesy of the Paul Taylor Dance Company

Who is doing the reconstructions?

Richard Chen See (member of Paul Taylor 1993–2008) is leading the reconstruction of “Tablet.” I’m handling “Churchyard.” Each project is massive and idiosyncratic. Our rehearsal director, Bettie de Jong, is involved, as are our director of education, Carolyn Adams, Nicholas Gunn, and the original cast-members of “Churchyard.”

What material do you have upon which to base these revivals? Notes? Video?

For “Tablet,” we have a clear black-and-white video of Pina and Dan. It was flipped during digital conversion, which we corrected using Paul’s notes. Someone had added the music track, but it didn’t line up. Richard and I figured out what part of the track had been eliminated. We also have lots of photos, which was helpful in reconstructing shapes and transitions.

Reconstruction is always a creative act.

Absolutely. And collaborative. We found a lecture-demonstration from 1971 that includes a trio from the “Profane” section of “Churchyard,” which is much clearer than the main video. These little gems help a lot.

I know you like to bring in the alumni to add their insights.

Dance is an oral tradition. Betty de Jong likes to say, “dances grow up as well as dancers.” We’re getting further from the first generation, so storytelling is key to keeping the company’s pulse alive. Alumni bring the stories and the essence. What was Paul like in the room? What was happening that day in the world? What were they thinking about? What were they reacting to? Those little images and ideas are huge for artists. You can have the steps and the counts but lack the feeling behind it.

What do you think the dancers get out of these revivals?

No one knows what these works look like, so everyone is starting from zero, without a hierarchy. That levels the field. And it facilitates conversation and community in a way that I think is great. There is an element of lineage, of being part of something that is older than they are. The dancers love them.

Marina Harss

Marina Harss is a dance writer in New York, a frequent contributor to the New York Times and the New Yorker Magazine, as well as to Dance Magazine and Fjord Review. She is the author of a book about the choreographer Alexei Ratmansky, The Boy from Kyiv, published by Farrar Straus and Giroux in 2023.

comments

Marina 09 juin 2025

Dear Jeannette, Neither of these dances had Labanotation scores. I’m sure the reconstructors wish they did.
Best,
Marina

Jeannette Paladino 03 juin 2025

Nowhere in this article is it mentioned that Paul Taylor was a huge proponent of Labanotation, a system of movement notation that accurately records and preserves choreography so that future companies may perform the works as the choreographer intended.The Dance Notation Bureau has in its files 50 scores of notated works by Taylor, which may include the ones being reconstructed.

Featured

REVIEWS | Steven Sucato

Ultimate Release

Perhaps not since Mikhail Fokine’s 1905 iconic “The Dying Swan” has there been as haunting a solo dance depiction of avian death as Aakash Odedra Company’s “Songs of the Bulbul” (2024).

Plus

REVIEWS | Sophie Bress

Weighty Issues

Dance, at its best, captures nuance particularly well, allowing us to feel deeply and purely. In its wordlessness, it places a primal reliance on movement and embodied knowledge as communication all its own. It can speak directly from the body to the heart, bypassing the brain’s drive to “make sense of.”

Plus

REVIEWS | Elsa Giovanna Simonetti

Modern Figures

“Racines”—meaning roots—stands as the counterbalance to “Giselle,” the two ballets opening the Paris Opera Ballet’s season this year.

Plus

REVIEWS | Elsa Giovanna Simonetti

Giselle Status

“Giselle” is a ballet cut in two: day and night, the earth of peasants and vine workers set against the pale netherworld of the Wilis, spirits of young women betrayed in love. Between these two realms opens a tragic dramatic fracture—the spectacular and disheartening death of Giselle.

Plus