Post by sarah on Jun 22, 2012 16:04:10 GMT
I think this is the right place to put this...
I really need your help here. I'm doing my Gold Arts Award and part of it is to write a view on a subject within the performing arts sector. I chose to do mine on whether dance film should be classed as dance or film and would really apreciate your opinions on the matter. It's quite long but you'd be helping out a lot.
Much love xx
I really need your help here. I'm doing my Gold Arts Award and part of it is to write a view on a subject within the performing arts sector. I chose to do mine on whether dance film should be classed as dance or film and would really apreciate your opinions on the matter. It's quite long but you'd be helping out a lot.
“Since the early 20th century, artists from the fields of dance and the moving image have been developing a hybrid practice, now commonly referred to as screen dance. Today this hybrid genre has thrown a “wide net” that includes dance, performance, visual art, cinema, and media arts. Screen dance is an incitement. It encourages exploration into the unknown and in turn the discovery of possibility. For both the maker and the audience, the fun is the adventure of discovering what the coming together of dance and screen could be.” screen dance: a definition.
The difference between live performances, live performance which is filmed and dance made specifically for film is the different experiences these present for the audience and ultimately how the audience perceives the choreography.
Often dance film is site specific or work which has been restructured from the previous form seen in a formal theatrical/proscenium setting.
Having worked on my own dance film, performed in a dance, and also having watched a professional artist choreograph movement for film, my views have been influenced in a number of directions, on a number of occasions.
When watching filmed live performances, the audience has the power to decide what they look at. It is usually linear and the audience has the benefit of watching it multiple times.
Dance that is originally made for stage but has been reworked can be enhanced by the illusion of special effects. These effects could take the form of fast or slow motion, and dancers suddenly appearing or disappearing from the set – which is created by overlaying of film. These effects can cause the dances to lose its linearity, but used in specific ways it can often retain it. For example 13 different keys by Siobhan Davies. This was originally for live performance that was turned into a dance film. Matthew Bourne called it a dance film which must mean that it is a dance film. During the live performance the audience were encouraged to move around the space and see the choreography from different angles. This way of viewing is similar to that of a dance film where you only see parts of the choreography. Although the audience were encouraged to move around the live performance, the way the live audience perceives the movement is very different to the way that the films audience perceives it. The film shows us angles that the live audience would not be able to achieve even though they were moving around. This makes me believe that this is film rather than choreography. Although the fact that the movement existed as live and as a dance film sways my opinion towards choreography, its linear existence during the film supports the idea that some dance films can retain linearity.
Unlike filmed live performance, dance made specifically for film takes away the audience’s privilege to choose what they see. However, the angle from which live performance is filmed can affect the audiences view and therefore perception of the choreography.
Through camera angles, the choreographer and director draw the audience’s eye to key moments or movements. These dances usually have a variety of settings, contrived or real and are often Site Specific and non – linear.
Some works appear more as film than dance in the conventional sense. Specifically, dances where filmic device is so sophisticated that the camera, and therefore the audience, perceives it in a more intimate way; unlike live performance. Therefore it is understandable that there are those who strongly believe that this would be film rather than dance and that as a piece of choreography it would not exist in its own right.
An example of the use of changing settings is in Cross Channel by Lea Anderson. This is a very pedestrian piece of work. Within the first few minutes the scene has changed multiple times between a train station, street and park. It is initially edited to give the impression of two separate events, in two very different places occurring simultaneously. Effects such as fast motion are used when the camera is zoomed into the arrivals board. Objects suddenly appearing take place in the section that is filmed on top of the white cliffs of Dover. The constant scene changes give this dance film a strong film quality. The effects do not mask the choreography but they take away from the idea that this is choreography. If the movement were to be collaborated into a stage piece it would not work, in my opinion.
We also see location transfers in Spectre De la Rose by Lea Anderson. It is filmed so that the audience see the movement as if they are standing amongst the dancers. The camera takes us down a set of stairs to a basement. The scene changes between a basement and then suddenly to an outside scene which makes this dance film, like cross channel, have a more filmic feel to it. The use of camera panning makes the motif performed by men in front of a hedge more effective. If this was shown as a live performance the movement would not be as effective.
This dance work also presents the way camera angles can be used to draw the audience’s eye in the opening scenes the camera makes the audience feel as though they are in the film. Without the filmic device of close up, small movements such as subtle hand gestures would be lost in this dance work. The use of slow motion and capture moments enhances key parts of this dance film that, if reworked for stage, could not be seen. This dance work is not cohesive as a piece for stage. It is because of these things that I feel this dance film, like many others, would not work as pure choreography and so must be classified as film.
Strong Language by Richard Alston provides a perfect example of choreography that has been reconstructed to make a film. This is evident in that we see the choreography is linear and film is used to enhance the movement. Use of effects such as split screen and wide shots make the choreography the main focus in the first section. The second section uses video overlay to show an enlarged image of the dancers in the space, again this is used to enhance the choreography. This choreographic focus is lost slightly by the use of close up shots of the dancers. The audience only gets to see what the director wants them to see. This method masks the choreography in a way that sways my thoughts of this dance film towards it being film. The use of repeating movement shot from different angles adds to this feeling. In later sections though it become clear that this dance film is choreography. This clear by the way it is filmed, the camera is situated about ten metres away from the dancers and all dancers and their movement can be seen performing a linear piece of movement. Filmic devise is used to enhance the choreography and help the audience appreciate it more.
I have experienced the creation of three dance films. The first was my own that used an extract from the diary of Anne Frank. This dance film was Site Specific, and as an extension of the film I restructured the movement to create a stage piece. I watched professional pieces, such as Cross Channel, and entwined the idea of changing locations to emphasise my theme. The choreography of this dance film was in no way linear and I found that it was easier to choreograph motifs on site to ensure that they worked well with their surroundings. This way of choreographing meant I did not create a piece of work that was linear, the movement wouldn’t have fitted together to create one piece of dance. In editing I used effects such a video overlay to give the illusion of there being many dancers when in reality there was only one. Effects such as this enhance the movement in a way that would not be possible in a live performance. The choreography I created for the film was in no way linear and was fragmented immensely. The live performance was a linear combination of the fragmented phrases; it was this linearity that formed the contrast between the dance film and the live performance.
In my opinion this experience has drawn me to believe that dance films are films. This idea has stemmed mainly from my experience of recreating my dance film to become a stage piece. The movement I had was both fragmented and too short. I had to spend a lot of time playing around with movement that featured in my film alongside new movement to create a sustainable piece. This was then performed with my dance film playing as a backdrop.
Before the creation of my dance film, I attended a workshop in which to gain skills that I could include in my film. This workshop was held by Mark Anderson – a professional dancer – who was also one of the choreographers involved in the dance film project that I will talk about later. During this workshop I came to realise that dance films were both choreography and film. I formed this opinion because of my experiences in the workshop. Mark choreographed a short piece and we experimented with different ways to film the movement. Each way made the choreography look completely different and it is because of this that I was inclined to think that such things were film not choreography. Although there wouldn’t be any film without the choreography and my opinion was altered again.
My second experience was having the chance to witness a professional dancer, Mark, creating a piece of choreography for a dance film. This was given the name “The Quiet Man Suite”. This choreography was then to be part of a large dance film project. Unfortunately due to prior commitments I couldn’t attend the filming day, but I had the chance to attend all of the sessions where the choreography was created. The dancer working on the project experimented with filming the movement during rehearsals and the creation period. This filming aided Mark (the choreographer) and meant that he could change parts that didn’t work well with the camera. This experience swayed my opinion slightly towards dance film being choreography. Although as part of this I used the choreography created for the project and turned it into a stage piece. This movement was limited as its outcome was to be fragmented into a dance film. To get around this issue I took the choreography from the previous year’s project and interlinked the two to make one dance. This contradicted my experience during the sessions and made me feel that dance film was film due to the movement’s purpose being to be fragmented and edited into a dance film. I think that I won’t be able to make a secure decision until I have seen the dance film which premiers on the 9th of July.
Although I wasn’t present at the filming days, I have been told what happened by the performers. The dancers underwent strict rehearsals in groups of up to 50 boys. The filmed was filmed in a variety of ways including being filmed from 25 meters away and also the use of long boards to get a smooth panning effect.
My views on this matter have also been influenced by the opinions of people who are involved in dance film making: “The hybrid screen dance medium is varied, encompassing a broad range of cinematic styles, exhibition formats, and subject matters traversing global perspectives. Screen dance is an active spectrum ranging from surreal visual abstractions to strict narratives. Screen dance is pushing art in a new direction as choreographers and directors continue to fuel innovation and impact the way we perceive art and life – dance media is a new visual language for our time.” Dance camera west founder and director, Lynette Kessler.
“I'd say that choreography for the camera is different from choreography for the stage, or any other three dimensional space.
Where and when film is involved the viewer is not free to look where he likes but more or less only where the camerawork takes him, thus making a distinction of some moment.” Robert Greskovic, Dance Writer, The Wall Street Journal.
“What strikes you when watching dance on screen, is it the choreography and dancers or is it the cinematography? Similarly, what makes the most impact when watching drama on screen?
Most feature films are made for people interested in the story and in the acting. Therefore most published reviews of films differ little from reviews of stage plays, even though the process of filming changes the way we experience the action. I was reminded of that change recently, having gone to see a dance performance in a theater that had just installed a huge screen above the proscenium. The management decided to show simultaneously what was happening live on stage and, via television, how it looked on the big overhead screen. That screens are flat whereas stage spaces are three-dimensional turned out not be the factor that made much of a difference because our minds add the illusion of depth to the screen action. Yet the screen’s more vivid illumination and its magnification of the dancers’ bodies made more movement detail and nuance visible than did the stage view. On the other hand, watching the stage also had its advantages: the overall dynamic shape of the dance was conveyed more potently and, yes, the live version on stage also seemed more alive.
When a dance originally made for the stage is filmed, one should ask why. If the purpose is to obtain an archival record of the dance, then the film director should try to minimize the factors that alter the choreographic text. When the purpose is to make a performance film, then cinematic techniques (camera angles, cut maneuvers, simultaneities, sizing, etc.) and even some re-choreographing may be called for so that the choreography’s effect is matched. George Balanchine, Jerome Robbins and Roland Petit are among the choreographers who readily re-made passages in their stage ballets when these were filmed for audiences sitting in front of screens. They even experimented with different changes for small screens (home television) and big screens (in cinemas). In the recent film “Pina”, the best of Bausch’s stage works - “Café Mueller” - didn’t seem as effective on screen as I remembered it being on stage. Was that because the film director hadn’t been bold enough in making changes to the stage version or because he was unaware of the piece’s essence? Of course the process of filming isn’t the only thing that can change a dance’s appearance or how the dancers look. Changing theaters can distort the dancing. A low proscenium tends to be bad for jumpy dances, putting a lid on them. The dancers of the Bolshoi Ballet, trained for the spacious stage of the company’s home theater in Moscow, often look cramped on tour when dancing on stages of average size. Older theaters may have a steeply slanted (“raked”) stage which upsets the balance of dancers used to flat floors.All these things and more (close-ups vs. long shots, musicality of the sound track, sharp vs. soft focus) are worth discussing when writing an exhaustive review of dance on screen. However, when faced with inspired choreography, imaginative dramaturgy, incandescent dancing and insightful acting, shouldn’t these things become the focus of the review?” George Jackson, Dance Critic.
“Personally, I cannot say that it is one or the other because 'dance film' is exactly that; dance and film. The approach that is taken to make the film can make it more or less about dance (in reference to David Hinton's pod casts) but nevertheless is a mixture of the two art forms.” Dagmar Birnbaum, Dancer.
“If it's done right (i.e. not just recording a dance on film) then I think dance films have to be classed as both choreography and film. Choreographing for the camera is a very different process to choreographing for a live performance; it allows you far more control over what the audience sees, the camera acts as the audience’s eyes which then enable you to make sure that they see exactly what you want them to allowing you to focus on the tiniest of details. Choreography is the art of creating a sequence of movement and whether it's designed to be viewed live (in performance) or only on film the choreographer brings the same artistry to both methods.” Mark Anderson, Dancer.
From all of my research and opinions from professionals, I would have to say that dance for camera is undoubtedly film. I think this because key movements such as small hand gestures or eye movement, that are crucial parts of the choreography, would be lost if performed live. Dance films contain so many filmic devises that make them what they are. Without these then the performance would be choreography. From watching the works mentioned above and from being a part of the creation process; I am sure that, although choreographic effort is included in the process, it is the filming and editing that makes dance film what it is.
Structure and presentation of the choreography makes the film and live performance two very separate entities, which contain common features.
The difference between live performances, live performance which is filmed and dance made specifically for film is the different experiences these present for the audience and ultimately how the audience perceives the choreography.
Often dance film is site specific or work which has been restructured from the previous form seen in a formal theatrical/proscenium setting.
Having worked on my own dance film, performed in a dance, and also having watched a professional artist choreograph movement for film, my views have been influenced in a number of directions, on a number of occasions.
When watching filmed live performances, the audience has the power to decide what they look at. It is usually linear and the audience has the benefit of watching it multiple times.
Dance that is originally made for stage but has been reworked can be enhanced by the illusion of special effects. These effects could take the form of fast or slow motion, and dancers suddenly appearing or disappearing from the set – which is created by overlaying of film. These effects can cause the dances to lose its linearity, but used in specific ways it can often retain it. For example 13 different keys by Siobhan Davies. This was originally for live performance that was turned into a dance film. Matthew Bourne called it a dance film which must mean that it is a dance film. During the live performance the audience were encouraged to move around the space and see the choreography from different angles. This way of viewing is similar to that of a dance film where you only see parts of the choreography. Although the audience were encouraged to move around the live performance, the way the live audience perceives the movement is very different to the way that the films audience perceives it. The film shows us angles that the live audience would not be able to achieve even though they were moving around. This makes me believe that this is film rather than choreography. Although the fact that the movement existed as live and as a dance film sways my opinion towards choreography, its linear existence during the film supports the idea that some dance films can retain linearity.
Unlike filmed live performance, dance made specifically for film takes away the audience’s privilege to choose what they see. However, the angle from which live performance is filmed can affect the audiences view and therefore perception of the choreography.
Through camera angles, the choreographer and director draw the audience’s eye to key moments or movements. These dances usually have a variety of settings, contrived or real and are often Site Specific and non – linear.
Some works appear more as film than dance in the conventional sense. Specifically, dances where filmic device is so sophisticated that the camera, and therefore the audience, perceives it in a more intimate way; unlike live performance. Therefore it is understandable that there are those who strongly believe that this would be film rather than dance and that as a piece of choreography it would not exist in its own right.
An example of the use of changing settings is in Cross Channel by Lea Anderson. This is a very pedestrian piece of work. Within the first few minutes the scene has changed multiple times between a train station, street and park. It is initially edited to give the impression of two separate events, in two very different places occurring simultaneously. Effects such as fast motion are used when the camera is zoomed into the arrivals board. Objects suddenly appearing take place in the section that is filmed on top of the white cliffs of Dover. The constant scene changes give this dance film a strong film quality. The effects do not mask the choreography but they take away from the idea that this is choreography. If the movement were to be collaborated into a stage piece it would not work, in my opinion.
We also see location transfers in Spectre De la Rose by Lea Anderson. It is filmed so that the audience see the movement as if they are standing amongst the dancers. The camera takes us down a set of stairs to a basement. The scene changes between a basement and then suddenly to an outside scene which makes this dance film, like cross channel, have a more filmic feel to it. The use of camera panning makes the motif performed by men in front of a hedge more effective. If this was shown as a live performance the movement would not be as effective.
This dance work also presents the way camera angles can be used to draw the audience’s eye in the opening scenes the camera makes the audience feel as though they are in the film. Without the filmic device of close up, small movements such as subtle hand gestures would be lost in this dance work. The use of slow motion and capture moments enhances key parts of this dance film that, if reworked for stage, could not be seen. This dance work is not cohesive as a piece for stage. It is because of these things that I feel this dance film, like many others, would not work as pure choreography and so must be classified as film.
Strong Language by Richard Alston provides a perfect example of choreography that has been reconstructed to make a film. This is evident in that we see the choreography is linear and film is used to enhance the movement. Use of effects such as split screen and wide shots make the choreography the main focus in the first section. The second section uses video overlay to show an enlarged image of the dancers in the space, again this is used to enhance the choreography. This choreographic focus is lost slightly by the use of close up shots of the dancers. The audience only gets to see what the director wants them to see. This method masks the choreography in a way that sways my thoughts of this dance film towards it being film. The use of repeating movement shot from different angles adds to this feeling. In later sections though it become clear that this dance film is choreography. This clear by the way it is filmed, the camera is situated about ten metres away from the dancers and all dancers and their movement can be seen performing a linear piece of movement. Filmic devise is used to enhance the choreography and help the audience appreciate it more.
I have experienced the creation of three dance films. The first was my own that used an extract from the diary of Anne Frank. This dance film was Site Specific, and as an extension of the film I restructured the movement to create a stage piece. I watched professional pieces, such as Cross Channel, and entwined the idea of changing locations to emphasise my theme. The choreography of this dance film was in no way linear and I found that it was easier to choreograph motifs on site to ensure that they worked well with their surroundings. This way of choreographing meant I did not create a piece of work that was linear, the movement wouldn’t have fitted together to create one piece of dance. In editing I used effects such a video overlay to give the illusion of there being many dancers when in reality there was only one. Effects such as this enhance the movement in a way that would not be possible in a live performance. The choreography I created for the film was in no way linear and was fragmented immensely. The live performance was a linear combination of the fragmented phrases; it was this linearity that formed the contrast between the dance film and the live performance.
In my opinion this experience has drawn me to believe that dance films are films. This idea has stemmed mainly from my experience of recreating my dance film to become a stage piece. The movement I had was both fragmented and too short. I had to spend a lot of time playing around with movement that featured in my film alongside new movement to create a sustainable piece. This was then performed with my dance film playing as a backdrop.
Before the creation of my dance film, I attended a workshop in which to gain skills that I could include in my film. This workshop was held by Mark Anderson – a professional dancer – who was also one of the choreographers involved in the dance film project that I will talk about later. During this workshop I came to realise that dance films were both choreography and film. I formed this opinion because of my experiences in the workshop. Mark choreographed a short piece and we experimented with different ways to film the movement. Each way made the choreography look completely different and it is because of this that I was inclined to think that such things were film not choreography. Although there wouldn’t be any film without the choreography and my opinion was altered again.
My second experience was having the chance to witness a professional dancer, Mark, creating a piece of choreography for a dance film. This was given the name “The Quiet Man Suite”. This choreography was then to be part of a large dance film project. Unfortunately due to prior commitments I couldn’t attend the filming day, but I had the chance to attend all of the sessions where the choreography was created. The dancer working on the project experimented with filming the movement during rehearsals and the creation period. This filming aided Mark (the choreographer) and meant that he could change parts that didn’t work well with the camera. This experience swayed my opinion slightly towards dance film being choreography. Although as part of this I used the choreography created for the project and turned it into a stage piece. This movement was limited as its outcome was to be fragmented into a dance film. To get around this issue I took the choreography from the previous year’s project and interlinked the two to make one dance. This contradicted my experience during the sessions and made me feel that dance film was film due to the movement’s purpose being to be fragmented and edited into a dance film. I think that I won’t be able to make a secure decision until I have seen the dance film which premiers on the 9th of July.
Although I wasn’t present at the filming days, I have been told what happened by the performers. The dancers underwent strict rehearsals in groups of up to 50 boys. The filmed was filmed in a variety of ways including being filmed from 25 meters away and also the use of long boards to get a smooth panning effect.
My views on this matter have also been influenced by the opinions of people who are involved in dance film making: “The hybrid screen dance medium is varied, encompassing a broad range of cinematic styles, exhibition formats, and subject matters traversing global perspectives. Screen dance is an active spectrum ranging from surreal visual abstractions to strict narratives. Screen dance is pushing art in a new direction as choreographers and directors continue to fuel innovation and impact the way we perceive art and life – dance media is a new visual language for our time.” Dance camera west founder and director, Lynette Kessler.
“I'd say that choreography for the camera is different from choreography for the stage, or any other three dimensional space.
Where and when film is involved the viewer is not free to look where he likes but more or less only where the camerawork takes him, thus making a distinction of some moment.” Robert Greskovic, Dance Writer, The Wall Street Journal.
“What strikes you when watching dance on screen, is it the choreography and dancers or is it the cinematography? Similarly, what makes the most impact when watching drama on screen?
Most feature films are made for people interested in the story and in the acting. Therefore most published reviews of films differ little from reviews of stage plays, even though the process of filming changes the way we experience the action. I was reminded of that change recently, having gone to see a dance performance in a theater that had just installed a huge screen above the proscenium. The management decided to show simultaneously what was happening live on stage and, via television, how it looked on the big overhead screen. That screens are flat whereas stage spaces are three-dimensional turned out not be the factor that made much of a difference because our minds add the illusion of depth to the screen action. Yet the screen’s more vivid illumination and its magnification of the dancers’ bodies made more movement detail and nuance visible than did the stage view. On the other hand, watching the stage also had its advantages: the overall dynamic shape of the dance was conveyed more potently and, yes, the live version on stage also seemed more alive.
When a dance originally made for the stage is filmed, one should ask why. If the purpose is to obtain an archival record of the dance, then the film director should try to minimize the factors that alter the choreographic text. When the purpose is to make a performance film, then cinematic techniques (camera angles, cut maneuvers, simultaneities, sizing, etc.) and even some re-choreographing may be called for so that the choreography’s effect is matched. George Balanchine, Jerome Robbins and Roland Petit are among the choreographers who readily re-made passages in their stage ballets when these were filmed for audiences sitting in front of screens. They even experimented with different changes for small screens (home television) and big screens (in cinemas). In the recent film “Pina”, the best of Bausch’s stage works - “Café Mueller” - didn’t seem as effective on screen as I remembered it being on stage. Was that because the film director hadn’t been bold enough in making changes to the stage version or because he was unaware of the piece’s essence? Of course the process of filming isn’t the only thing that can change a dance’s appearance or how the dancers look. Changing theaters can distort the dancing. A low proscenium tends to be bad for jumpy dances, putting a lid on them. The dancers of the Bolshoi Ballet, trained for the spacious stage of the company’s home theater in Moscow, often look cramped on tour when dancing on stages of average size. Older theaters may have a steeply slanted (“raked”) stage which upsets the balance of dancers used to flat floors.All these things and more (close-ups vs. long shots, musicality of the sound track, sharp vs. soft focus) are worth discussing when writing an exhaustive review of dance on screen. However, when faced with inspired choreography, imaginative dramaturgy, incandescent dancing and insightful acting, shouldn’t these things become the focus of the review?” George Jackson, Dance Critic.
“Personally, I cannot say that it is one or the other because 'dance film' is exactly that; dance and film. The approach that is taken to make the film can make it more or less about dance (in reference to David Hinton's pod casts) but nevertheless is a mixture of the two art forms.” Dagmar Birnbaum, Dancer.
“If it's done right (i.e. not just recording a dance on film) then I think dance films have to be classed as both choreography and film. Choreographing for the camera is a very different process to choreographing for a live performance; it allows you far more control over what the audience sees, the camera acts as the audience’s eyes which then enable you to make sure that they see exactly what you want them to allowing you to focus on the tiniest of details. Choreography is the art of creating a sequence of movement and whether it's designed to be viewed live (in performance) or only on film the choreographer brings the same artistry to both methods.” Mark Anderson, Dancer.
From all of my research and opinions from professionals, I would have to say that dance for camera is undoubtedly film. I think this because key movements such as small hand gestures or eye movement, that are crucial parts of the choreography, would be lost if performed live. Dance films contain so many filmic devises that make them what they are. Without these then the performance would be choreography. From watching the works mentioned above and from being a part of the creation process; I am sure that, although choreographic effort is included in the process, it is the filming and editing that makes dance film what it is.
Structure and presentation of the choreography makes the film and live performance two very separate entities, which contain common features.
Much love xx
[M:1450][M:1450]
