Argh! I wish the LA Times didn't have a paid subscription so everyone could read the entirety of Matthew Bourne's article in today's LA Times. Basically, it explains the motivations behind PWW --- he is interested in storytelling, and is inspired by Fred Astaire's movies in how he does it. Dance for him isn't there for its own sake, but more for moving the story forward.
He sees the theatre/dance separation that some critics have proposed as a false dichotomy (which I agree with), and says that the main purpose of his theatre is to communicate, which he does very ably through dancing.
He mentions that his company works more like a drama company than a dance company when they're trying to figure out how to make things work.
What more is there to say?more
Matthew Bourne, Special to the LA Times
I don't mind the big questions, and I rather like debates. However, I must admit to some puzzlement over recent discussions regarding "Play Without Words." "Is it dance? Is it theater?" Has the title alone provoked this confusion? If it has, I should probably let everyone know that it's all quite accidental.
I said, "Well, why don't I try and do a play without words. Would that be interesting to you?" He wrote down, "Play Without Words." It stuck. Later, I tried to change the title to "The Housewarming." They told me I could use "The Housewarming" as a subtitle. "Can't I have 'Play Without Words' as the subtitle?" I couldn't. So, here we are.
(requires paid subscription)