Margot Fonteyn had flat feet, but her lush, generous port de bras and the passion and joy etched across her face made her mesmerizing to watch. Bob Fosse was round-shouldered and pigeon-toed, but the way he engaged and involved every muscle in his body while dancing, from his eyebrows to his pinky fingers, drew the audience to him. Perhaps neither had technique that would meet today’s rigorous standards, but both went on to become legends in their respective genres—thanks in no small part to their innate ability to connect with audiences, to draw the eye. They were magnetic. Like Peter Gallagher’s character said in Center Stage, “When Margot Fonteyn danced, you couldn’t take your eyes off her.”

Some people are just born with charisma. It’s in their walk, their posture and their gaze. But for the rest of us, developing stellar stage presence can take practice and attention. And let’s face it: In today’s dance climate, technique just isn’t enough. The most memorable—and marketable—performers merge technical prowess with the ability to grab the audience from the very first chaîné, shuffle, six step or strut. But can this “it” factor be taught?

What is Stage Presence?

Having great stage presence is not as simple as plastering on a mega-smile or pained expression. That grin or grimace won’t mean anything if the audience doesn’t believe it’s genuine. “Movement is more believable when it’s not just from your body, but from an emotional place,” explains “So You Think You Can Dance” contemporary choreographer Sonya Tayeh. Whether you’re telling a story or moving abstractly, expressing joy or sorrow or even a lack of emotion, it’s important to pull the audience into your onstage world.

Dancers who are being true to themselves also seem true to those watching. “SYTYCD” Season 4’s Courtney Galiano found inspiration on the competition circuit: “I hated when the judges would sit and chomp on their Doritos while people were dancing,” Galiano says. “When I’m onstage, I don’t want to hear a pin drop.” How does she continue to pull that off? “When I go out there, it’s my stage,” she says. “I am completely in that moment, emotionally invested.” Believing in what you’re doing and letting yourself express what you’re feeling onstage is step one toward capturing your audience.

Emotional energy is only part of the package, though; stage presence also shines through your physicality. When you’re dancing, “elongate your lines, and make sure your energy can be felt even when your back is to the audience,” Galiano advises. “Finish all the moves. Fill the space.” And don’t forget that power can be packed into even the smallest of steps. Fosse, for instance, was a master of tiny, precise movements that beckoned to the audience. “[Fosse taught us that] small, subtle moves must be executed with as much life and intensity as a grand jeté,” says Dana Moore, who teaches theater dance at NYC’s Steps on Broadway. “In ‘Big Spender’ from Sweet Charity, we were given the image of a full blender turned on high with the top on tight—an absolutely still container with the internal ingredients whirring madly.” Fosse could draw attention while completely still—just by touching his hat.

Does Acting Help?

What’s the difference between having stage presence and acting? Depends on who you ask. If you’re in a character role—think musical theater, or story ballets like Romeo and Juliet—presence and acting are inextricably linked. “When you’re dancing a character, ‘he’ or ‘she’ will inform every move,” Moore says. Portraying someone else onstage means moving—and acting—as that person or creature would. Still, especially outside of musical theater, acting skill often takes a backseat to simple performance appeal. In the hierarchy of the ballet world, for instance, dancers might not be given “acting” roles until they’ve shown standout stage presence in the corps. Additionally, “some dancers are better actors than others, often because they have more experience with full-length ballets,” says William DeGregory, director of Pennsylvania Ballet II. “There are also principal dancers who excel in Balanchine pieces that don’t require acting, but they still demonstrate wonderful presence.”

The best advice may be to not think of what you’re doing onstage as “acting.” “The word ‘acting’ can lead to make-believe,” Tayeh cautions. “Effort goes into creating an emotion, when in reality the emotion is already there in each piece.” If you try to display the emotion you think you should be feeling instead of finding a real connection to the music, story or steps, your stage presence may suffer.

How Can I Develop Presence?

Start in the studio. Don’t assume stage presence is separate from technique. “When technique becomes second nature, you don’t think about it anymore. You gain confidence,” Tayeh says. “But if you’re constantly worrying about what you’re doing, how can you express a sincere emotion?” Practice, practice, practice. Being well-rehearsed will leave you free to explore your performance onstage. “The more you dance a piece, the easier it becomes,” says DeGregory. “You can experiment, and bring out new things each time.”

Build your musicality. Musicality is a big part of stage presence. Onstage, you need to be confident not only in the main counts or musical cues, but also in the nuances in between. How do you do that? “Breathe with the music,” DeGregory explains. Then you’ll be in sync with your score, even if the choreography doesn’t have you dancing exactly on the beat!

Additionally, Moore recommends asking yourself questions like “How do you feel about the music?” and “Where does it take you?” to connect better emotionally to the music and find yourself within the choreography.

Try something new. Sometimes stronger presence can be found in the smallest of adjustments. “Attack a step or the role differently,” DeGregory says. “Maybe don’t be so aggressive, or look for freedom of the arms or head.”

Find pleasure in it. If you love what you’re doing and are comfortable onstage, the audience will trust you. “Don’t just do the moves because your teacher told you to,” Galiano says. “Move your body because you want to move.”

Remember, learning to maximize your stage presence will take time. “It’s okay to not know it all right away,” Moore says. “Keep practicing and allow it to creep up on you— presence will come to you in a more specific and truthful way if you don’t try to slap it on or force it.” If nothing else, know that working on your stage presence won’t just help you communicate with an audience. You’re also finding ways to make dancing more exciting and fulfilling for yourself—and what could be better than that?

 Five Pros Share What Stage Presence Means to Them.

Afra Hines, Broadway’s In The Heights  - “To me, stage presence starts with being comfortable with what you’re doing, because you allow the audience to see a human, instead of just seeing someone in a costume. Go for the ride fully—that’s when the audience can’t take their eyes off you. They feel connected, like your story is their story, too.”

Sterling Hyltin, principal, New York City Ballet  - “Stage presence is essentially my personality coming out onstage. When I dance a role that fits my personality, I feel that I have the most presence. However, dancing a role that fits your persona is not always going to happen. That’s when I let the role take over—my stage presence becomes a mirror to the way dancing that ballet moves me, from the inside out.”

Mandy Moore, Choreographer - “Stage presence is that imaginary light that shines down on a performer, making everyone else on the stage disappear. It’s that look in the eye that says, ‘Watch me and don’t take your eyes off me. It’s when a dancer’s body screams experience—you can see in every movement the hours spent in the studio working to perfect the craft.”

Carson Murphy, Freelance Tap Dancer - “Tap dancers are also musicians, so we have to communicate with the music. Stage presence is the ability to seamlessly mesh these two parts of tap, dance and music, while at the same time interacting with your fellow dancers and the audience. When you are able to give energy and joy to the people around you—when you’re deeply alive and present—that comes across to the audience as great stage presence.”

Sara VonGillern, “SYTYCD” Season 3 and Member of “The Syrenz, “an All-Female Hip-Hop Crew

“As a dancer, I’m constantly being molded into new characters. When I perform, I become a different person. On the Avril Lavigne tour, I transformed into a ‘punky skater girl.’ The moment I stepped on the stage I became this spunky, bratty punk rocker, throwing my fists in the air and head-banging.”

Instead of debating who was better,(And I say this with great affection for both) I’d like to take a look at what shaped and defined  each one  and how viewers can identify with either or both.

Starting Out

Before I dive in to the particulars, it’s important to discuss a bit of what was happening behind the scenes when they were first getting their relative starts.  Fred Astaire was 13 years older than Gene Kelly and was on Broadway by the time he was 18 (Gene didn’t go to Broadway until he was almost 30).  Because he arrived so much earlier and there was little to no competition from the cinema until much later, Fred had a chance to gain more insight into the workings of Broadway.

In Fred’s day, the musical stage comedy was far less integrated than it was in Gene’s day.  Things were beginning to move toward a more integrated form, but for the most part, the average musical consisted of a loosely connected string of comic sequences tied together with catchy songs and pretty girls in scanty dress.  It was, in short, a venue for new hit songs to make a first appearance, and the action seemed to have been written around the songs.  For this reason, Fred is responsible for introducing dozens of songs that would go on to become popular standards (i.e., songs that belong to what is often referred to as “The Great American Songbook”).

When Gene was on Broadway, George Gershwin was gone.  Some of the greats such as Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, and Cole Porter were still working, but many of their legendary tunes had already been written and were performed by others (including Fred Astaire).  Gene’s first Broadway show, Pal Joey (1940), featured songs by Rodgers & Hart – songs that flowed immediately from the surrounding action because they had been written specifically for such a purpose.  While Pal Joey was a much darker musical in many respects than Gene would ever be a part of again, the idea of a more integrated production was one that would stick with him throughout his career.  In brief, the dancers’ Broadway beginnings would shape their later Hollywood careers: Fred would concern himself largely with dancing and routines, while Gene’s primary concern was a larger one, advancing the art of cinematic choreography and the film musical genre.

Acting

All of this background information is important because it affected how the two approached acting.  For example, when Fred Astaire is onscreen, there is a humble “shrugging” quality about his acting that seems to be apologizing for itself.  He’s eminently likeable, but he seems to be saying, “I know I’m not very good at this, but I’m sure you’ll be kind enough to put up with me until we get to the next song.  Oughta be one in (glances at watch) just a few minutes.”  In fact, fellow dancer and some-time costar Ann Miller once recalled sitting next to Fred at an event in which scenes from his films were shown.  Reportedly, Fred made dismissive and embarrassed comments about his acting to himself as he watched. Director Vincente Minnelli stated that Fred “lacks confidence to the most enormous degree of all the people in the world.  He will not even go to see his rushes…He always thinks he is no good.”

Gene couldn’t have been more different.  The character he tended to play was more brash and outspoken, and due to the more integrated form of musicals he was a part of and the resulting increase in their relative complexity, the roles he played were a bit more demanding.  Gene only played a professional dancer once, in his first role, Harry Palmer in For Me and My Gal (1942). But even this role was rather demanding when compared with most of Fred’s as it called for a dark edge: Harry was an opportunist and a draft dodger.

If Fred is “guilty” of not trying hard enough – something that managed to work in his favor; less is usually more when it comes to acting – Gene is equally as guilty of trying too hard.  The New Yorker’s Russell Maloney put it this way in a review of Thousands Cheer (1943): “Gene Kelly … is a beautiful dancer, but he’s not a musical-comedy actor…The horse of sincerity in the bathroom of musical comedy, that’s Gene Kelly.”  Gene reportedly once admitted that he couldn’t do a close take very well.  Because he didn’t always trust himself as a natural actor, there is a tendency to screw his face up a little bit harder, or put another inch or two of inflection in his voice.  This is why he was at his absolute lovable best when he played hammy actors, such as Don Lockwood (Singin’ in the Rain, 1952) or Serafin (The Pirate, 1948), or cocky sailors like Joe Brady (Anchors Aweigh, 1945) and Gabey (On the Town, 1949).  Over-acting becomes almost necessary.

Singing

A lack of confidence was common to both men when it came to their singing ability.  Fred appeared as the mystery celebrity guest on What’s My Line? in 1955.  When the blindfolded panel tried to ascertain his identity by asking if he was a singer, his answer was no.  When his identity was finally revealed, Dorothy Kilgallen protested and told him she thought him one of the finest singers who ever lived.  Fred demurred charmingly and almost bashfully.  While Ms. Kilgallen may have been a bit excessive in her praise, it is true that Fred was and is highly regarded not so much as a singer but as an interpreter of popular song, by fans and songwriters alike such as Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, Johnny Mercer,

Gene never gave us such a collection of gems.  Unfortunately, his albums suffer from poor production values and a general lack of quality material.  Unlike Fred, he seemed to lack the ability to translate to singing the musicality he so aptly expressed with his body.  However, his tremendous charm when putting over a song within the context of the film musical, such as Singin in the Rain  surpasses even Fred’s.

Dancing

If it weren’t for their dancing abilities, neither Fred nor Gene would be famous today.  As implied above, their acting and singing skills alone would not have carried them to the legendary status their names now enjoy.  They were triple threats, but dancing was their true talent – and for this reason alone they are inextricably linked in the public consciousness.

As we’ve established, Fred came along first.  His dancing is characterized first and foremost by class and elegance. There is an almost supernatural effortlessness about his dancing. He worked hours to make it appear that way, but to the mere spellbound spectator he appears to just float on air.

No matter how fast he moves, he never seems to be working very hard.  In spite of his affability and his warm smile, this effortlessness gives him a remote, untouchable quality.  We love him; we are charmed by him; we want to be like him, but he never quite lets us all the way in.

Gene’s dancing is in a different dimension, poles apart from Fred’s.  Where Fred is light and airy, Gene is powerful and earthy.  Gene was a bit shorter and more muscular and therefore always seems bound to the ground.  This muscularity and earthiness gives his dancing a greater vitality and dynamism – a volatile physicality and a pop that one can almost imagine hearing in addition to seeing.   Because he is so strong, he has tremendous control over his movements, so that even while he seems to be exploding in all directions at once, perfection and precision win out. 

If Fred’s dancing is characterized by an innate sense of class, Gene’s is characterized by joy.  He has the gift of being able to impart joy to everyone lucky enough to set eyes on him.  His boundless boyish energy and enthusiasm is one reason why.  His dancing seems to say, “Hey!  Life is wonderful and you’ve been given another day to live it.  Get out there and make the most of it.”  Another way he imparts joy is in how he inspires a person to think that if s/he just tries hard enough, s/he might be able to do what Gene does.  Fred’s dancing says, “Pfft.  Forget it.  You’ll never be this good.”  Gene’s dancing, while equally as spectacular in its own way, is honest and human.  He allows us to see that he’s working hard – constantly pushing and pulling against the limits of gravity and the human body.  We can see it all: blood, sweat, tears, and, quite literally, scars.  Writer James Lileks once said that Gene so embodies the American spirit that his face should be on money.  What could be more inspirational and American than the notion that if one works hard enough, one can accomplish anything?  Gene’s dancing gives us that illusion and keeps that dream alive.

Together

While Fred and Gene shared the screen in the 1974 musical compilation/documentary That’s Entertainment (right), they only danced together once in their prime: in “The Babbitt and the Bromide” number from Ziegfeld Follies (1945). Video below.

It is perhaps impossible that two tremendous talents could ever fully satisfy us with only one number, and many fans find this particular number lacking.  The story is that both men went out of their way to be accommodating as the number was being developed and rehearsed, which resulted in a finished product that is pleasant to look at but doesn’t really capture the style of either man.  It is obvious that the two men admired and respected each other and enjoyed working together. It makes you wonder why there couldn’t have been more chances to enjoy them both.

Still, despite these flaws, to fans of both men it must stand on its own merit as an unadulterated treasure.  I would much rather have “The Babbitt and the Bromide” than nothing at all.  It gives us our only opportunity to compare them side by side in their prime and to witness firsthand how great they were.  We can see that neither was better than the other, just vastly different.  They both deserve our acclaim and our affection.

In today’s world of one hit wonders, it’s wonderful to have access to youtube and DVD’s of great dancers such as these two. My hope is that each new generation will continue the debate of the better dancer.

The Game-ification of Dance: The Future Is Now
By Boris Willis

Imagine this as the dance class of the future: You are digitally tracked and gain experience points for every exercise you do. For instance, 10 points for showing up 10 minutes early; 10 points for warming up before class; 15 points for keeping your heels down every time you plié; 10 points for keeping your shoulders down in every port de bras; and 10 points for balancing one second longer than in your previous class. Or, for example, holding your balance 3 seconds longer awards you a level 2 “Master of Balance” achievement trophy. Getting this virtual trophy unlocks a side quest that challenges you to do three double pirouettes in a row, which, if successful, gets you a clothing upgrade for your avatar. Perhaps improving your timing in the phrase you did last week gets your overall class score high enough for you to move up to the intermediate technique class. Finally, every time you reach 1,000 points you win free tickets to a show, get a free class, or get a discount at a retail outlet. Because accomplishments could be tracked and stored on a computer and sent electronically, they could immediately be utilized to show areas of strength and weakness.

Imagine being able to instanteneously send these statistics to a choreographer you might want to work with who then offers you a chance to audition. In the dance class of the future every student gets documented feedback on everything she does using the same technology found in today’s video games. The implications for the game-ification of dance are exciting and offer a glimpse of a future that marries artistry, gaming, and digital communication together.

There are some interesting parallels between the art forms of dance and game design. In either field, as a beginner you might feel foolish, lost, or frustrated that you don’t fully understand what is happening or how to proceed. However, as you improve, your confidence grows. You might try something that works some of the time and then make mistakes and fail. Oftentimes you are inconsistent and learning on your own feels slow and awkward. Because you fail over and over, you can either stop or try harder to succeed. If you decide to focus and learn, you will more than likely get better. You begin to learn how to combine actions and invent new ways to explore.

Computer games have evolved into a 21st-century art form in a world that is more socially connected, and more technologically advanced than at any time in our history. Like choreographers, game designers are artists who are primarily concerned with creating an engaging experience. Crude symbology games with obvious gameplay like Pong have evolved into photo-realistic worlds of art, music, storytelling, puzzles, and interactivity. Today’s video game worlds allow you unique experiences that involve fantasy, competition, and social interaction, but there is more to gaming than fun.

Until recently many people only thought of video games as toys, but, in fact, game technology and concepts are evolving. Game hardware, such as the Wii Remote and the Microsoft Kinect, have been hacked and used for motion tracking and image capture. Serious games such as “World Without Oil” and “Saving Darfur” deal with simulation, education, and training and teach real information about important subjects. Gaming is used extensively in medicine and the military in a variety of ways. Online games like “Foldit” have helped scientists understand how proteins fold while the online game “America’s Army” teaches young people about life in the military. Although these games can be very difficult, players dedicate themselves to 50 to 100-plus hours of game time to complete them. Because of this self-motivated learning, educators have been looking into increasing games and game processes in schools.

Something important about learning to play a game is the process of failure, which fortunately results in acquiring the knowledge that leads to eventual success. Solving puzzles in a game is just like learning new movement in a dance class. Every time you make an attempt, you gain a little more knowledge about what to do before eventually figuring it out. As you progress and your skill level increases, you also gain the strength and ability to recover when an unplanned event happens. If you fail along the way, you also learn something new.

Dance video games are among the most popular gaming titles available to the general consumer market. With the introduction of motion controllers such as Nintendo Wii, Playstation Move, and Microsoft Kinect, dance games can now teach someone to follow simple steps and then rate how well each player’s movements are timed with the game. Today’s dance video games are iterations of the popular rhythm game, “Dance Dance Revolution” or DDR. Released in North America and Europe in 1999 by the Japanese game company Konami, DDR was not so much a dance game but a game based on moving your feet with exact timing. You step on pressure-sensitive pads and keep in time with arrows on a screen that lined up with the hit location.

Today’s dance games, however, provide full-bodied dance steps where each body part can be tracked with a motion controller. Just like when you take a dance class, you mirror the instructors on the game screen getting a prompt slightly before hand so you know what step is coming next. Like DDR, you need to execute the timing correctly to succeed.

There are some significant ways that games differ from dance, however. The traditional presentation of dance is mostly linear, while a game is always interactive. The act of seeing dance is almost always passive, while playing a video game is always active. In addition, as games have developed, they have continued to provide more and more information about how to play them, what the challenges are, and what the player can expect to learn. Games contain intricate puzzles, which force the player to stop playing and think, then start again at any point in the future. Dance is presented as a complete moment in a specific time frame and in a specific space without regard to mistakes made in performance or with technical cues. Making a mistake in a video game often means you have to stop and try again. As games moved from the arcade to the home, they have become longer and more complex adding multiple ways to play such as cooperative and online multiplayer modes. There are times when these differences converge. Recently Richard Daniels released an iOS app of his choreographed work. Unlike a performance his “Dances for an iPhone” or iDances is not live and unlike a game it is not interactive but being able to watch Carmen de Lavallade, Deborah Jowitt, or Molissa Fenley dance on my iPad no matter where I am is an idea I find very exciting.

The development of games could be instructive to the future development of dance performances. Dance can harness the power of technology and follow the example of the computer gaming industry to make the experience of being in the theater more engaging and watching dance more informed.

Many of my friends in dance tell me that its beauty lies in the abstract construction of bodies connecting us to meaningful experiences. For many, watching dance is like watching a sky full of color and movement with moments of turbulence, stinging heat, or beautiful light. Technology is only a distraction. For me, gaming, the Internet, and mobile devices have changed the way the world works and changed who we are and how we access the world. I don’t think that live performance will ever go away just as I don’t think that e-readers will make the paper book disappear anytime soon. But gaming technology can create powerful new experiences of live performance and develop ways to keep us engaged in a work long after the show is over. Gaming technology can change the way we train dancers, give them feedback and motivate them to achieve. The games industry has learned some important lessons over the past 40 years, which allowed it to grow into a multi-billion dollar industry. While earning billions may not be on the path dancers take, I say let’s not ignore the possibilities. Interactive gaming is here to stay, it may be time for dance to embrace this technology and play!

Boris Willis is chief artistic officer of Boris Willis Moves and an assistant professor of dance and computer game design at George Mason University. He is the founder of the blog www.danceaday.com. He has performed with Liz Lerman/Dance Exchange, Streb, Jacob’s Pillow’s Men Dancers and many Washington, D.C.-based choreographers. Willis has an MFA in dance and technology from The Ohio State University, a BFA in Dance from George Mason University and a diploma in contemporary dance from the University of North Carolina School of the Arts. He is the recipient of the 2003 Kennedy Center Local Dance Commission and a Virginia Commission for the Arts Fellowship in Choreography.

Top: Boris Willis, by Neil Adams

(Source: dancegame)