SCREENCHOREOGRAPHY

Challenging the artistic and conceptual parameters of choreography and dance.

Marion Poeth Student number: 3448924

Thesis MA Theatre Studies

Utrecht University

Tutor: Dr. Chiel Kattenbelt

Second reader: Prof. Dr. Maaike Bleeker

August 2011

Choreography and cinema share an intense interest in moving bodies and their relation to space and time. Both could be considered moving arts, interrogating the nature and quality of movement and producing new varieties of movement through their work with the body, theatre design, mise en scène, objects, camera, edit, and postproduction effects. Erin Brannigan1

1 Brannigan, Erin. Dancefilm: Choreography and the moving image. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), viii.

1 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank everyone who helped and supported me throughout this research. I would like to thank those who helped checking and correcting my English. Special thanks goes to Chiel Kattenbelt for guiding me through this process with great enthusiasm and for giving me much needed theoretical feedback.

2 Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. What is screendance? 7 2.1. History of the dancefilm 7 2.2. What are Screendance and screenchoreography? 11

3. Case study – Aesthetic framework 16 3.1. Aesthetic panorama as framework 16 3.2. Body 17 3.3. Camera 21 3.4. Space 29 3.5. Time 33 3.6. Sound 36

4. Expanding artistic boundaries of choreography and dance 40 4.1. Possibilities for choreography 40 4.2. Cinematic principals in theatrical dance choreography 50 4.3. Conclusion 54

5. Challenging the conceptual parameters of dance 57 5.1. Expanding the conceptual boundaries of choreography and dance 57 5.2. Editing as a choreographic process 61 5.3. The screen choreographer 63 5.4. Conclusion 64

6. Conclusion 66 6.1. Results 66 6.2. Extended research 69

7. Bibliography 71

8. Filmography 74

9. List of performances 76

10. Appendix 77 10.1. David Hinton lecture 77 10.2. DVD 81

3 1. Introduction

Film and video have spawned entirely new forms of dance, created when director and choreographer go beyond the constraints of the body and find new ways to capture human motion. Whether a documentation tool, a study aid, or a creative medium, the recorded moving image has forever changed the way we perceive and experience dance. 2 Maya Deren

There are many examples of dance on screen that are well known to a large audience. The fast edited dance scenes in Step Up 3d (2010), the live broadcasted performances of dancers on TV shows such as So You Think You Can Dance (2009) and the many new dance styles shown in numerous music video’s are a few of those examples. This thesis will not focus on these commercially produced screendance forms. Rather it wishes to emphasize another form of screendance, one in which “the dance and the cinematography are combined in such a way that a form of choreography is created that is only possible on screen. This form or category of screendance is often referred to as screenchoreography by festivals such as the Dutch Cinedans festival and by screendance critics and writers such as Claudia Rosiny. Screenchoreography is a form of intermedia art, a hybrid art form that comes forth out of film and dance. Screenchoreography is more than ‘dance on film’ or ‘dance for film’, statements that suggest that the dance is in service of the film. Although in many screendance productions this is the case, screenchoreography can be seen as ‘dance as film’.3 This means that neither medium is in service of the other, but that the two are combined in such a way, that they create a new type of cinematic choreography, a new art form. Screendance and screenchoreography have however also led to much debate and critique, inciting that the two are not complementary. Critique has been directed at the ‘flatness’ of dance on screen as compared to the ‘liveness’ and risks of stage dance.4 Consequently these critics do not acknowledge screendance or screenchoreography as an art form on its own. The fact that many do not acknowledge screendance as a hybrid form is also due to the lack of a critical discourse on screendance, as well as an elaborate theoretical framework and methodology. Additionally, this lack is due to the fact that many of those critics come from either field of dance or film and thus also place screendance in either dance or film discourse. This is because they see it as an invention coming from the dance field or as a genre within the film medium.5

2 Mitoma, Judy. Envisioning Dance on Film and Video. (New York and London: Routledge, 2002), xxxi. 3 Kappenberg, Claudia. “Does screendance need to look like dance?” in: International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, Volume 5 Numbers 2&3. (© Intellect Ltd, 2009), 90. 4 Dodds, Sherril. Dance on Screen: Genres and Media from Hollywood to Experimental Art. (2001) (Eastbourne: Antony Rowe Ltd, tweede druk, 2004), 16. 5 Rosenberg, D. “Proposing a theory of screendance”. In: Proceedings ADF (American Dance Festival) Screendance State of the Art 1, (2006, 6–9 July, Durham, NC: Duke University), 12.

4 Perspective However, this thesis will claim that screendance can be considered a hybrid, or an art form on its own. Because it produces a type of movement generated by two ‘forms of writing’, cinematography and choreography.6 From this perspective, further claims will be made about the choreographic possibilities that screenchoreography opens up, due to collaboration between the choreographer and the director, and between dance and film. Moreover, screenchoreography work can challenge our traditional perception patterns, as well as the established definitions of choreography and dance. It is this claim that brings forth my hypothesis:

The combination of cinematography and choreography in screenchoreography productions expand the established artistic and conceptual boundaries of choreography and dance.

This research is positioned within the paradigm of screendance theory and analysis. However, discourse on screendance is initiated in both the film and dance field, therefore film and dance theory cannot be excluded. Furthermore, the formulation of the hypothesis makes clear that the goal of this thesis is to point out how cinematography challenges choreography and dance, rather than how choreography challenges cinematography or cinema. Consequently, the greater part of the information gained by this research is more useful for the field of screendance and dance than it is for the film field. However, the focus in this thesis lies on the hybrid nature of screenchoreography. It is the combination between film and dance that opens up possibilities for choreography and dance. Therefore, the perspective from which this thesis has been written is ‘movement’, rather than choreography or cinematography, dance or film. Taking movement instead of dance or film as the main perspective has also made possible a more equal analysis of screenchoreography, favouring neither dance nor film. Without losing sight of the fact that in screenchoreography the screen is the medium trough which we perceive the choreography and the ‘dancing’. The cinematography and the fact that the ‘dance’ is mediated on a screen and not on a stage, makes it possible for choreographers to challenge the established parameters of dance.

Structure The structure of the thesis is set out in four parts. The first part consists out of the introduction and the second chapter, which gives a brief history of dance on screen. It highlights the differences in the types of collaboration between dance and film, seen from the perspective of movement. Next, it presents an analysis of the recent discourse and debate on screendance, focussing on how screendance can be seen as a hybrid art form because of its interdisciplinary. Followed by a motivation and clarification of the term screenchoreography. The third chapter is a descriptive study, in which the principal objective is to point out how the interplay between cinematography and choreography creates movement in screenchoreography

6 Kappenberg (2009), 90.

5 work. The screenchoreography works will be discussed using an aesthetic framework proposed by Claudia Rosiny in her book Videotanz: Panorama einer intermedialen Kunstform (1999). 7 She proposes five aesthetic perspectives or concepts, from which we can look at dancefilms: body, camera, space, time and sound. Each perspective will be discussed individually, with recent examples of screenchoreography work. Chapter four reflects on the findings from chapter three. It tries to answer the following question. What do these findings tell us about the choreography on the screen? How do the cinematography and choreography challenge each other and how is the movement created? In what additional ways could movement be created trough this combination. What does a cinematic view on choreography entail? What does this say about the work itself and how does a cinematic view on dance challenge the way we perceive it? Afterwards, it looks at the influence of cinematography on choreographic practices in theatrical dance. It will discuss several dance performances in which traces of cinematography can be found in the structure of the movement and choreography. The last chapter proposes how these choreographic practices on the screen can consequently expand our conceptual notions of choreography and dance. Cinematography opens possibilities for choreographic practices because it frees it from the parameters of theatrical dance. Furthermore, the fact that the dance is mediated through the screen challenges the way we are used to look at dance. This is were the opportunity for screenchoreography lies, to challenge our established perception patterns of dance and trigger us to individually uncover new layers of meaning to dance on screen. Next, this chapter will suggest how choreographic principles can be applied outside of screendance, as a method for editing cinematic films. Next it looks at the role of the choreographer in the filmmaking process of screenchoreography and other films. The conclusion will point out how the main hypothesis has proven to be plausible, given a summary of the main arguments that support this claim. Finally, it will suggest several topics and for further research, based on the perspectives that have not been touched upon in this research.

7 Rosiny, Claudia. Videotanz: Panorama einer intermedialen Kunstform. (Zürich: Chronos verlag, 1999)

6 CHAPTER 2 What is screendance?

This chapter starts in section 1.1 with a brief introduction into the history of collaborations between dance and film from a film perspective, to show that film and dance are compatible because they share the ability to show and write movement. Discussing in chronological order, the beginning of film, the American Hollywood Musical, the Avant-Garde film and experiments in choreographing for the camera. We will see that some favoured the film medium, trying to show movement though cinematic elements, and others favoured the dance medium, showing movement in the frame without moving the camera. Furthermore we will see that it were the avant-garde dancefilm makers who experimented with collaborations between cinema and dance to create choreographies for the screen. We will see that it were these experiments that point out that choreography and cinematography are both methods to write movement and are therefore highly compatible. Section 1.2 will look into how screendance developed into an art form on its own, this time looking from the perspective of the dancefield. It will continue explaining how the avant-garde cinema practitioners came from the dancefield to experiment with choreography and film. It will explain what screendance entails, and why it can be seen as a hybrid art form. Furthermore, it gives an overview of the recent discourse on screendance and screendance terminology. It will elaborate the chosen terms for this thesis and explain why it only discusses screenchoreography work and not other, possibly equally promising categories of screendance in terms of providing new methods for choreographing. Because screenchoreography is a genre that is similar to the experiments of the avant-garde cinema makers, who tried to create choreographies for film.

2.1 History of the dancefilm Film Pioneers In the early years of cinema, film pioneers wanted to explore the possibilities of showing movement with film. They were fascinated by film’s capacity to capture movement and it’s ability to ‘capture the movement of modern life’ in a sense. Because dance embodied movement as such, it became one of the most common filmed events. At that time, the camera had one fixed viewpoint. It used a fixed lens, which made dance an even more perfect way to show movement in the image. These examples used simple dances, limited to one square meter, preventing the dancers from moving out of the frame. Between 1894 an 1910, many of the first moving pictures were short dancefilms. Most of these featured solo dancers from vaudeville and burlesque.8 An example of these early dancefilms is Thomas Edison’s recordings of a two-minute dance by Ruth Denis in 1894.9 Camera movement was not introduced until later for example in D.W. Griffith’s Film Intolerance (1916) featuring again Ruth Denis, by that time also known as Ruth St. Denis. 10

8 Brannigan (2011), 19. 9 Rosiny, Claudia. “Videodance”. In: Videodança magazine 2007. (Dança Em Foco. Brazil, 2007), 73. 10 Rosiny, Claudia. Videotanz: Panorama einer intermedialen Kunstform. (Zürich: Chronos verlag, 1999), 73.

7 Hollywood Musical With the development of the sound film in the late 1920’s, the American Musical Film became a popular genre. The camera maintained mostly fixed positions, and in the first productions the dance was only an interlude in a narrative film. These types of musicals were called ‘backstage musicals’.11 The musical film with long dance phrases became popular with Fred Astaire among others. These films also became popular because of their starring actors who could act, sing and dance. Each Hollywood Film Company had there own group of actors who starred in almost all films by that production company. In the Fred Astaire musicals the film was in service of the dance. The camera stayed passive and followed the dance, making a type of documentary like stage recording.12 The dance scenes were preferably taken in a single take without any cuts, with the whole body in the frame at all times. Astaire did use special effects but these were stage effects rather than film effects.13 Thus the only movement in these films came from the dancing subjects in the frame. Busby Berkeley was the filmmaker who put the dance in service of the film. In his work the camera made the choreography. In other words, he choreographed with cinematic elements. He used a lot of group work, mass movements and geometrical patterns that consequently lead to the invention of the top-shot. The invention of the top-shot meant a new perspective for dance in film. Furthermore, the use of film effects and tricks like distorting lenses, mirror effects, tracking and panning, manipulations of time and space and unusual editing, made the dance become more dynamic. He made dancers move toward the camera and the camera toward the dancers, consequently creating more impact. Unlike on the stage, where movements on the x and y-s have a greater impact on the audience, in film the movements on the z-axis have a higher impact.14 Berkeley never concerned himself with the narrative of the film, whereas later musical filmmakers wanted to integrate the dance into the plot. These types of musicals were also referred to as the ‘integrated musical’.15 The movement in these films was created through the movement of the subjects in the frame as well as the movement of the camera and movement created by the edit. Gene Kelly was the one to really integrate the dance into the narrative as well as using filmic devices on dance. In Singin’ in the Rain (1952) Kelly participated as dancer as well as choreographer and film director. He was just as much concerned with the movement of the camera as he was with choreographing the dance. 16 Therefore in his films the movement of the camera and the movement of the subjects complimented each other. And because the camera movement was complementary to the plot, the dance became equally integrated into the plot. David Hinton made a remark about the films of Gene Kelly in one of his lectures on dancefilm, saying that for instance in Singin’ in the Rain,

11 Dodds (2004), 7. 12 Hinton, David. “Lecture on videodance”. Personal annotations made at the Point Taken voorlichtingsdag 2 (Mediafonds: Amsterdam, April 12 2011), 1. 13 Rosiny (2007), 74. 14 Rosiny, Claudia. “Zeichen des Raumes im Videotanz.” In: Brandstetter, Gabriele. Finter, Helga. Wessendorf, Markus. (ed.)Grenzgänge: Das Theater und die anderen Künste. (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1998), 66. 15 Dodds (2004), 6. 16 Rosiny (2007), 74.

8 the dance as well as the camera and the cut make ‘the narrative journey’. 17 Despite these developments the Musical genre declined in 1950’s. However its influence can still be seen in film adaptations of musicals Cabaret (1972) and musical-like dance films like the recent film Burlesque (2010). This film integrates the dance as well as singing into the narrative.18

Figure 1: Singin’ in the rain (1952, Gene Kelly). Photo: Harold Rosson. Figure 2: Dames (1934, Busby Berkeley). Photo: John Ellis.

Avant-garde cinema While mainstream Hollywood produced its first musicals, the avant-garde cinema also experimented with dance and film. Many of these experimental filmmakers came from the dance field, Wendy Toye, Yvonne Rainer, Sally Potter and Maya Deren, to name a few. They used cinema as a way to experiment with choreography in relation to time and space. Maya Deren is one of the most well known filmmakers who have tried to combine dance and film. Deren describes her work A study in Choreography for the Camera (1944) as being a dance that has been made specifically for and with the camera and that it cannot be performed outside of it. She called this type of film ‘choreo-cinema’. Although her other work never showed dance, it did bear the same choreographic quality in that she created a choreography by moving the camera as well as the subjects in the frame, as well as through the edit. The BBC also contributed to the development of screendance in 1937, by giving Antony Tudor the opportunity to make a choreography specifically for television. He made Fugue for Four Cameras (1937) in which he experimented with choreographing dance for the camera. Other pioneers that experimented with choreographing for the camera were Merce Cunningham and Brigit Cullberg in the 1970’s and 1980’s. According to Dodds, Cunningham introduced a new way of looking at dance by experimenting with the effects of video on time, space and energy.19

17 Hinton (2011), 1. 18 Dodds (2004), 6. 19 Ibid., 7, 9-10.

9 Dance film and music video During the 1980’s many new forms of screendance emerged. It meant the rise of a new dance film genre such as Saturday Night Fever (1977), Fame (1980) and Dirty Dancing (1987). Although they share some similarities with the early Hollywood Musicals, they are classics in the sense that they use dance as a metaphor for social identity, and less for the narrative.20 At the same time the music video was introduced, initially made to promote music singles. Although not all music video’s show dance, popular music is often related to a specific popular dance style or form. Hence we see many music videos with dancing bodies. The dancing can be improvised or tightly choreographed and performed by either members of the band, professional dancers or members of the audience. Music Videos were also used as a tool for the artist to show off their dance skills. Michael Jackson and Madonna each have their own individual dance styles, matching their music style. Madonna especially, is known for frequently changing her image and music style, and consequently introducing new dance styles and routines to go with it.21 Another promising category of screendance that emerged along wit digital media is ‘hyperdance’, also called ‘cyber-dance’, ‘web-choreography’ or ‘web-dance’. Harmony Bench, assistant professor in critical dance and performance studies at the Ohio State University, claims that this category also has great potential and offers new opportunities for choreographic practices. It is a type of screendance that is closely linked to technological developments. It is a computer-based screendance form that involves translating dance into data or computer-codes, and integrates user interaction. These digital dance practices range from virtual dancing bodies on videodance- installations, to computer programs for choreographing and interactive web-dance projects. Although also a form of screen-art, hyperdance involves different screening-sites. Secondly, its focus lies on experimenting with choreography and the interactivity with the viewer. The viewer plays an important role in these works. According to Bench this type of screendance can also change the way we look and think about screendance.22 Although I do agree with Bench, I would say this calls for another theoretical framework, it needs its own extended research altogether. My aim is to see how the combination with cinematography in screenchoreography work can open up possibilities for choreography. Therefore I will not discuss it further in this thesis.

Conclusion We have seen that dance has played a role in film throughout the years, and that it can be said dance and film are compatible. Already in the very first experiments of film it became clear that movement is the element that makes them compatible. Different genres of dance on screen have emerged throughout the years, such as Hollywood Musicals, dance films, music videos, avant-garde cinema and

20 Ibid., 6-7. 21 Ibid., 49-50. 22 Bench, Harmony. “Hyperdance: Dance Onscreen, Dance Online: Or, What Difference Does the Medium Make?”. In: Proceedings ADF (American Dance Festival) (Screendance State of the Art 1, 2006, 6–9 July, Durham, NC: Duke University), 89, 92.

10 art dance. 23 However, the relationship between dance and film differed. In the early years of cinema, filmmakers used dance as a tool to emphasize the possibility to show movement on film, the moving image. Fred Astaire used the Hollywood musical to film the dance, putting the film medium in favour of the dance. Busby Berkeley however did the opposite. For him the dance was in service of the film medium, a tool to create cinematic films. During the time of avant-garde cinema however, it was mainly artist who where initially involved in dance that conducted screendance experiments, whereas the first dancefilm experiments were executed by filmmakers. In the next part we will see how this led to screendance and the blending of art forms in general.

2.2 What are Screendance and screenchoreography? Intermediality: blending of art forms According to Claudia Rosiny, artists in the dance field in the 1980’s were looking for new space concepts and new theatre spaces for choreographing. Consequently this led them to experiment with other art forms such as visual arts and cinema, which contributed to the blending of art forms.24 This brought forth various hybrid art forms such as screendance and video-installation art. On the other hand, the rapid developments of the audio-visual media also had their influence on performances in the theatre. Film and television made its way onto the theatre stage. Televisions and screens were placed on the stage to experiment with liveness and intermediality, and cinematic methods were introduced to choreographic practices. Some of Pina Bausch’s choreographic work is based on cinematic concepts that manipulate time, like slow motion and fast-forward. The work is also build up like a montage; it has a fragmented character similar to editing. 25 These are all part of a general movement toward intermediality and the blending of art forms since the twentieth century, which has led toward new perception patterns. Because screendance is a hybrid art form, an interdisciplinary art form, it combines the aesthetics and mechanisms of perception from both film and dance.26 However, hybrid also means that it is something new created from something else. We have seen that in the avant-garde experiments of dance on screen, the filmmakers used both choreography and cinematography to create movement. They recognized that choreography and cinematography are both methods to write movement. The following statement by Jean-Francois Lyotard, underlines the fact that cinematography is a method to write movement: “Cinematography is the inscription of movement, a writing with movements-all kinds of movements”. 27 This statement claims the same about choreography: “The practice of choreography is ancient; the word itself comes from the Ancient

23 Ibid., 3. 24 Rosiny (2007) 70. 25 Dodds (2004) 2. 26 Rosiny (2007) 70. 27 Lyotard, Jean-François. “Acinema.” In: Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A film Theory Reader. (ed.) Rosen, Philip. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 349.

11 Greek, and it literally means dance writing.” 28 Based on this, screenchoreography practices are similar to the avant-garde experiments. In screenchoreography the movement is also created by a mix of choreography and cinematography. This combined way of writing movement creates new aesthetic forms of movement, movement that cannot be executed outside the screen. And because they create a new type of movement, screenchoreography can be seen as an art form on its own.

Screendance Discourse Because screendance is a hybrid art form it is also discussed in other discourse. It is discussed in discourse on film and image, intermediality, and dance and the body, but mainly in the two later discourses, because critics predominantly see screendance as an invention coming from the dance world. A lack of sufficient theory on screendance both contributes to and causes the fact that screendance has little to no discourse of its own. Furthermore, there is no concrete definition of screendance. And there is also no agreement on the various subcategories and genres of screendance and what they entail. In fact, as will be explained in the next two parts, all of these points make a discourse on screendance problematic. According to Douglas Rosenberg, videodance practitioner and lecturer, screendance is still a vague concept because it has not yet been defined. It is a discipline that lacks self-definition. Therefore screendance can only be discussed by borrowing theory from other disciplines. Screendance is criticized from a film or dance perspective. There is no specific theoretical framework for screendance by which critics can judge the work. And when there is no critique, there is no what Rosenberg calls, ‘feedback loop’. This means that screendance does not have its own critical discourse, and can therefore not be taken seriously as an independent art form.29

Screendance; terms, categories and genres However, in the last few years screendance festivals are emerging all over the world, and conferences are organised to open up a discourse on screendance. These festivals have helped screendance to become more accepted as an independent art form with its own theoretical framework. They have also helped set up specific genres of screendance. Additionally, an increasing number of scholars are writing about screendance and some of them have been trying to set up a theoretical framework by which to analyse and discuss screendance. Due to these proceedings, the term ‘screendance’ has become the commonly used term to define the entire field of dance on screen practices and discourse. However, scholars and critics disagree on the sub-genres of screendance. As a consequence, it is not always clear what type of screendance is meant by a specific term. Claudia Kappenberg mentions something similar in a recent article “Does Screendance need to look like dance” (2009). She says that recent debates on screendance have been limited by a lack of differentiation of practices within screendance. The genres we use for screendance are not sufficient

28 Wise Geek dictionary, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-choreography.htm 29 Rosenberg (2006), 15, 16.

12 and they do not do justice to the complexity of the discipline. She mentions Dodds, who divides screendance into the following subgenres; Hollywood dance film, television advertising, music video, stage adaptation and video dance or dance-art. Kappenberg points out that these genres reflect on historical developments of screendance because they are based on modes of production, but that none of them gives an indication of the artistic content.30 Several screendance festivals also use genres based on modes of production, but these genres also indicate the artistic level of the content. Plus these terms tell us something about the type of collaboration between film and dance. Consequently it tells us something about the movement. The Dutch Screendance Festival ‘Cinedans moving media festival’ in Amsterdam, uses the following genres; ‘live performance relay’, ‘camera re-work’, ‘documentary’, and ‘screen-choreography’. A live performance relay, a simple recording of a stage-performance, offers fewer possibilities to experiment with the cinematic elements than a screenchoreography work, with a choreography made specifically for and with the camera. Pointing out that the movement in these films is apparent on more than one level. The movement is produced by a collaboration between cinematography and choreography, movement in the frame, movement of the camera and movement through the edit. This indication is not always reliable as a camera-relay; a camera adaptation of an existing choreography, can be more interesting than a screenchoreography in terms of the use of cinematic elements in combination with the choreography. However I will focus on screenchoreography because this type of work entails a close collaboration between filmmaker and choreographer from the start. Together they create the choreography on the screen, or ‘the screenchoreography’.

Why screenchoreography? The main goal of this thesis is to claim how screendance can produce new forms of movement, choreography, and dance, and ultimately ask for redefining of terms. Screenchoreography is the type of screendance that is most suitable to discuss because it is focused on creating new forms of movement. It is a term used in festivals to define works in which the contribution of dance and film is apparent from the beginning. Whereas, other screendance genres favour dance over film. Screendance has a higher chance of being seen as an independent art form when both media are used correspondingly, to complement one another and bring forth a new type of movement, not possible in any other way. The term ‘screenchoreography’ is often used in the same line as ‘cinedans’, ‘choreo-cinema’ or ‘videodance’. However opinions differ on what they entail exactly. Some indications are that it should be digitally edited and that it should be an artwork that stands on its own, it should exclusively include choreographies specifically made for the camera, and some even go so far to say that it should be dancing human-bodies. On the latter notion there are exceptions. David Hinton, screendance artist and lecturer, thinks it can be any body whatsoever, moving in any way whatsoever in any place whatsoever. He broadens the concept of screenchoreography by adding to it, what he

30 Kappenberg (2009), 94.

13 calls, ‘docu-choreography.’ These are choreographies that are made by editing existing film- sequences and shots into a certain rhythm.31 An example of this is his film ‘Birds’ (2000), created entirely by re-editing nature footage of wild birds from the BBC on a soundtrack of bird sounds and sporadic rhythmical music.32 I will argue in the following chapters that it is this broadening of the concept that opens up even more possibilities for screenchoreography. Because it is my aim to seek how screenchoreography can open up possibilities for choreography and dance as concepts, I will also try to keep the concept of screenchoreography as broad as possible. In the previous part I have elaborated on what I believe ‘screenchoreography’ as a concept can entail, I have not however, explained why I choose this term over other terms such as ‘choreo- cinema’, ‘cinedance’, and ‘videodance’. Two straightforward reasons for me to choose this term is firstly, that it is used by screendance festivals and thus by critics and jury members that critique screendance work. Secondly the term is clear, it is what it indicates, a choreography on/for the screen. The term ‘choreo-cinema’, invented by Maya Deren, refers to ‘choreography made for dance and film’. It also points out the combination between choreography and cinematography, however it is a term inevitably linked to the avant-garde work of Maya Deren.33 Although it is therefore closely linked to cinema and cinematic elements, it also seems to indicate that this excludes digitally recorded and processed screendance work. The term ‘videodance’, used by Sherill Dodds and Claudia Rosiny, also refers to the experimental forms of screendance, those in which the choreography has been made specifically for the camera. However, the term ‘video’, seems to exclude all non-digitally recorded and processed work. Moreover, it is linked to the technical developments and the availability of the video camera for a bigger audience. Although they point out that this has led to the many experiments of making dance for the camera, it also shows that anyone can pick up a camera and record a dance. It than becomes difficult to point out the difference between artistically processed screendance and a simple recording of a dance. Lastly it does not put enough emphasis on the choreography, but rather it puts emphasis on dance and the mode in which it is produced. The term ‘Cine-dance’ is more favourable. It refers to cinema, thus also cinematic elements, and to dance. The reason it is less favourable than screenchoreography is similar to the reasons of that of ‘choreo-cinema’. In Critical Dictionary on Film and Television Theory (2001), R. Pearson and P. Shanks mention the following about ‘cine-dance’: “The avant-garde began to experiment with combinations of dance and cinematic movement that would create a form of choreography possible only on screen.”34 This points out that the term is strongly connected to avant-garde cinema.

31 Hinton (2011), 2. 32 Podcast audio-clip podcast of: David Hinton's talk at Dance for Camera Nights, Brighton. http://www.southeastdance.org.uk/part09birds.mp3. 33 Dodds (2004) 7. 34 Pearson, E. Roberta. Simpson, Phillip. (ed.) Critical Dictionary of Film and Television Theory. (London: Routledge, 2001), 122.

14 Secondly, as with ‘choreo-cinema’ it seems to indicate that it includes only non-digitally produced work. Thirdly it puts emphasis on the term ‘dance’, whereas screenchoreography stresses the term ‘choreography’, which allows us to define more work as if it is screendance. Screenchoreography includes the choreographing of dancers as well as objects, like in stop motion films, or shapes in animations. It can also include the choreographing of the camera and even the choreographing of the use of cinematic elements and the editing-process. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that the choreography and thus the dance are mediated through the screen. This changes the way we perceive the dance, and it therefore challenges our established perception patterns regarding dance.

15 CHAPTER 3 Locating choreographed movement

This chapter sets out to describe how cinematographic qualities are combined with choreographic qualities and how they can create the movement in the film. Section 2.1 explains why a specific framework is chosen in this thesis to discuss several screenchoreography examples. This framework provides five perspectives to analyse screendance work. The five perspectives form the outline of the second part of this chapter in which each concept will be elaborated. Within each perspective different works will be discussed, typical for that specific perspective.

3.1. Aesthetic panorama as framework To make claims about screenchoreography work and the possibilities it offers to choreographic practices, it is necessary to look at some actual examples. This calls for a theoretical framework with which these works can be analysed. Claudia Rosiny’s offers an aesthetic panorama in her book Videotanz: Panorama einer Intermedialen Kunstform (1999). The key concepts that make up this aesthetic panorama are; ‘Body’, ‘Camera’, ‘Space’, ‘Time’ and ‘Sound’. She uses these concepts as analytical perspectives (‘Blickwinkel’) to look at various types and genres of screendance.35 It is equally suitable for screenchoreography work, because it does not favour dance or film theory, it uses theory from both sides. And similar to screenchoreography it approaches both choreography and cinematography, and recognizes that the combination of the two is what creates the movement in screendance work. Under the concept ‘Body’ she proposes to analyse the following elements: the movement of the dancers and performers, the choreography and the dance. The movement of the camera and the camera settings, perspectives and angles are placed under the concept ‘Camera’. The concept ‘Space’ divides three types of space, the space on the screen, the movement-space and the narrative-space. The movement-time and the timing of the edit are placed under the concept ‘Time’. Finally the concept ‘Sound’ looks at the use of sound and distinguishes the musical soundtrack, ambient sounds, human generated sounds and sound effects. However it is almost impossible to discuss these elements as separate entities, because it is the combination of these elements that ultimately creates the screenchoreography. All of the screenchoreography productions discussed in this chapter have been screened at the Dutch Cinedans Festival, most of which in the latest edition, December 2010. Each perspective will be looked at separately, discussing only relevant examples within each perspective. In total twenty screenchoreographies will be used, however not each example will be discussed in length. Additionally, for clarification and comparing purposes, some points in text refer to examples from other film genres.

35 Rosiny (1999), 109.

16 3.2. BODY

Movement-vocabulary The first concept or perspective Rosiny proposes in her book is ‘der Körper’36, in English ‘the body’. From this perspective we can look at movement in the frame, choreography and dance. Although all kinds of dances styles are represented in screendance, most screenchoreography work presents a kind of dance-vocabulary that cannot be compared with any specific style. We see every day movements, gestures and all types of dance styles combined. Specific dance styles are more often seen in camera reworks of existing choreographies. An example that is not recent, but still relevant for this matter, is the film Amelia (2002) directed by Edouard Lock and performed by Lalala Human Steps. In this camera-rework of the original performance Amelia (2002), the movements are based on the movement-vocabulary of the company, in this case modern ballet.

Figure 3: Body of war (2009, Isabel Rocamora). Photo: Mari Luz Vidal.

The 15 minute film Body of War (2010) directed and choreographed by Isabel Rocamora is a film that does not show a recognizable dance-vocabulary. The movements are based on military training for close combat. Rocamora invites us to look at war-choreography, in the way we look at theatrical dance choreographies. She wants to show us how these soldiers repeat these movements frequently so that the men will know them by hart. And so that eventually also their mind becomes set to surviving and killing, and the man becomes a ‘soldier’. The movements they perform are normally not seen as being choreography or dance. This film shows that these movements are closely choreographed, down to every finger. We see men performing these movements on their own, in duets, or in groups. We see the same movements in real combat situations alternated by training situations. At one moment the viewer is invited to look at the gentle and accurately performed

36 Rosiny (1999), 109.

17 movements, the concentration and the intimacy between two soldiers. While at the next moment we are abruptly reminded of the brutality of these movements. These soldiers also performing their choreographies, the difference is that their performative space is the battlefield and not the stage. And in their situation, not performing them well could get them injured or even killed. So in their own way these bodies are performing these war-choreographies, they are dancing bodies of war. Another example is the film Hyperscape (2010) directed by Wilko Bello and choreographed by Marco Gerris. This film is based on old martial art films. The movements are based on the martial art techniques of evading attacks and giving in to them. The movement-vocabulary is a mix of martial arts, free running and breakdance. So the movement-material is recognizable, but not directly referred to as dance. Although several martial arts techniques have been implemented in dance practices, such as techniques for falling without injuring yourself. Or methods for partnering based on anticipating and reacting on the movement of your partner. A similar technique is used in contact- improvisation. Hyperscape shows how fighting scenes in film, especially those based martial arts, are also choreographed and can also be called dance. In this film however, the emphasis is on the movement and not the narrative. Secondly the movements in this film are executed in a way that is not possible outside of film. They use stunt-robes to jump higher and further, the edit is done so that the performers can jump from one space into the next. In paragraph 3.4. on space, it will be become clear how the cinematography here also redefines the space.

Figure 4: Hyperscape (2010, Wilko Bello). Photo: Boris Suyderhoud.

18 The human body is the subject? Many screenchoreography productions are made from collaboration between choreographers and filmmakers. Because choreographers are used to make choreographies for human bodies, Claudia Rosiny claims that all these screen-choreographies are made with ‘the body’ as the subject, the theme from which the movement is derived. I partly agree with this. It is in many cases true that when the initiative lies with the choreographer, that the subject of the film is the human body. She also states a quote by Norbert Servos about choreographers, “Was allen Choreographen gemeinsam ist: Sie entwickeln auf die eine, auf die andere Art, ihre Stücke stets vom Körper her. Er ist das Thema, wo immer auch der individuelle Akzent liegt“.37 However, in this phrase he does not mention what type of body he is referring to, therefor it could be any type of body; human, animal, machine, object. However, I think he is referring to human bodies in this context and not to other types of bodies. Because I believe for the goal of this thesis it is interesting to also look at screenchoreographies that show non-human bodies. Experiments with other bodies are often evident, yet not always, when the initiative or idea comes from the filmmaker. In the following examples, the choreography is not specifically based on the human body, but other types of bodies are explored. Weights of Sorrow (2010) is a short animation film choreographed and directed by Ninja Miori. The original filmed footage has been animation in hundred of layers to look like an animation. The actual human performers for this film are dancers wearing insect-like costumes. However due to the manipulation of the images they are almost unrecognizable as such. If slicing the shots vertically in the middle, one would see that both sides are the same. The half of the shot is mirrored, creating a kaleidoscopic image. This creates a strange ink-spot like animation in which strange insects seem to perform a dance. So in this case, although the original footage starred human bodies, due to the filmic methods the subjects performing in this film look nothing like human bodies. Secondly the actual movement of these insect bodies is not produced by the original human performers, but with cinematic methods, the edit and the layering of the frames.

Figure 5: Weights of Sorrow (2009, Ninja Miori). Film still courtesy and copyright Ninja Miori.

37 Norbert Servos quoted in: Rosiny (1999) 121.

19 The next example shows a dance between a human body and an object. HOOP (2010) directed by Marites Carino with choreography by Rebecca Halls shows how the hoop is the object that initiates the movement of the human body, and how the human body maintains the movement of the hoop. However the emphasis in this film lies in the movement of the hoop and not the human. The film 12Sketches (2011), directed by Magali Charrier and choreographed by Magali Charrier & Selina Papoutseli, combines animation with recorded footage. This film was not screened at the 2010 festival because it is only recently produced. It is however in the selection for next year, and I think it has interesting qualities, relevant to this research. Although the animation is not a specific animal or object, it does interact with the dancers and the space. When the shot is frozen the animation seems to take over, being the only thing left that actually moves. The emphasis shifts from the movement of the dancers to the movement of the animation and back. Another short animation showing a non-human body dancing is 7 tonnes 2 (2004) directed by Nicolas Deveaux. This film was not entered in the festival by the director himself, but was selected for screening at the Cinedans festival by the film-selection board. So there must be specific qualities in this film for them to label it as being screenchoreography. In this animation an elephant walks up to a giant trampoline and performs a series of complicated jumps and summersaults. The camera, which is also animated, ‘follows’ the movements of the elephant. So both body and camera are choreographed and animated. This specific choreography or ‘dance’ is only possible due to 3d animation programs.

Figure 6: 12Sketches: on the Impossibility of Being Still (2010, Magali Charrier). Film still courtesy and copyright Magali Charrier. Figure 7: 7 tonnes 2 (2004, Nicolas Deveaux). Film still courtesy and copyright Nicolas Deveaux.

20 The next example is also a film starring moving animals. Only in Horseplay (2010), directed and choreographed by Ruth Meyer, the animals, horses, are real. They interact with two male dancers. In this film the shots of the horses are alternated with shots of the two men. The horses look to the left side of the frame and the men to right side, making it look as if they are interacting with each other. After that we see some footage of two horses following and chasing after each other in a meadow, followed by a long shot of the two men dancing a duet in the grass. The previous footage of the horses influences how we look at the duet. The movements seem to be initiated by the idea of following. In the next scene we see the two horses again, performing the same movements. Only this time, like the last time, the previous images remain in our memory altering the way we perceive the movement of the horses. With a little imagination we can also see the horses performing a choreographed duet, a dance. The precise order of the shots and the positions of the camera also contribute to believability of this image. It is the edit that maintains the continuity of time and it is the edit that creates unity in the shots.

Figure 8: Horseplay (2010, Ruth Meyer). Photo: Henk Schalken.

3.3. CAMERA

The second concept is ‘Kamera’38, ‘camera’. From this perspective we look at the movement of the camera in relation to the movement in the frame and the impact on the movement in the frame by the camera settings and positions and other filmic techniques added in the postproduction. Lastly we can also look at how these filmic elements influence the narrative or the concept of the film.

Camera settings and positions The position of the camera or the camera-angle and the framing are aspects that influence the way the movement in the frame and the way it is perceived. Most commonly used frames are wide, total, half total, medium, close, and extreme close up. The camera-angles are Bird view, high angle, eye level, low angle and oblique angle. 39

38 Rosiny (1999) 121. 39 Ibid., 212.

21 The close up is used often in screenchoreography work. It has offered new perspective on the dancing body. While total shots give a more similar view on the body as that in the theatre, the close up shows details of the body. Erin Brannigan mentions that the close up has brought a through revolution upon the dancefilm because it offered new types of choreography and a new type of film. These films show small, intimate gestures rather than big and fast actions through space. In cinema the close up, and especially the facial close-up is connected to storytelling and emphasising the characters expressions or words. This type of close up can have additional function in dancefilm. It can be used to intensify minimal facial muscle movements and expressions, creating what Brannigan calls ‘corporeal micro-movements’.40 These micro-movements can also be choreographed for the camera. In the short-film Paganini for face (2004) directed and performed by Nicola (lastname unkown), a man performs a face-choreography to a musical score by Nicolo Paganini. Even though this film was posted on youtube, probably without any attention to be screened as a screenchoreography, it was screened at the festival. The clip is a perfect example of a micro- choreography. Or one could say the musical score is translated into a movement score. His facial expressions are visual representations of the tones in music.

Figure 9: Paganini for Face (2007, Ashenzil). Film still courtesy and copyright Ashenzil.

A close up does not necessarily refer to a zoom in on a specific part of the body, the cameraman can also move toward the thing he wants to film in detail. In the next example the close up’s are made both by zooming in on the subject with the lens alone, and by moving toward the subject with the camera itself. In Vertiges (2009), directed, choreographed and performed by Stéphanie Decourteille, the subjects are the feet. The movements in this film are all medium to close, with the camera at floor-level, sometimes shot from the front and sometimes from the side. A woman runs through a small pool of water, which mirrors here feet, but her feet almost never touch the floor. The woman seems to be levitating above the floor, running fast but not getting anywhere. In the first shot a woman tries to run away from the camera, but she does not seem to move and neither does the camera. In the sideway shots, the camera and the woman seem to stay in the same spot, whereas it is

40 Brannigan (2011), 39-41.

22 the floor that seems to be moving. The shots from the front the camera moves toward the woman but the woman also makes sudden leaps toward the camera. The toes close in on the frame for an instant while drops of water splash up toward the lens, and as they move back the shot moves to medium once more. In this shot there is also depth in field, as the feet move away from the camera they become out of focus, when in close they are in focus. In some of these moments were the frame is closing in on the feet, the movements are in slow motion, emphasising the restriction of the movement. The movement of the subject toward the camera has a big impact on the viewer. If the viewer is already emerged in the film, this movement can increase the kinaesthetic experience, because it feels as if the subject is coming toward him or her. As already stated in chapter one, Busby Berkeley was well aware of the dramatic impact movements toward the camera had on the viewer, when he used these in his film musicals. Claudia Rosiny also agrees that in film movements on the z- axis, toward the camera, have a bigger impact on the viewer. This is in contradiction to dance on stage, where the movements on the x and y-axis, jumps and traveling movement from left to right, have more impact.41

Figure 10: Vertiges (2009, Stéphanie Decourteille). Film still courtesy and copyright Stéphanie Decourteille.

Camera Angles The camera angle is something that can also influence the movement within the frame. However, out of all the examples I have analysed for this thesis, there are but a few that have used variations of camera angles. Many of these do show some kind of camera-movement, but the direction of the camera often stays horizontal, at eye-level. The following example is one of the few in which the camera-angle and the position of the camera is an important aspect in the film.

41 Rosiny (1998), 66.

23 In Retrograde (2010), directed by Julianna L. Steingrimsdottir and choreographed by Asgeir Helgi Magnusson and Inga Maren Runarsdottir, two dancers find themselves in their living room where the gravity is reversed. The ceiling functions as the floor. The dancers try to move back across the walls toward their furniture and what they know to be the floor, but cannot fully succeed. The director shows their struggle by filming from various angles and turning the camera. Especially the oblique angle, also called the Dutch angle, is an angle in which the horizon is not straight but slightly tilted. This makes the space in which the dancers find themselves come across as unstable. The movement of the dancers also seem to be affected by these camera angles. When the camera is slightly tilted to the left, shifting the horizon to a diagonal, the dancers role down that diagonal. It is as if the frame of the camera is also the frame in which the dancers move. The movement of the camera seems to control the movement of the room. These constant shifts in camera- angles and unstable positions also affect the viewers, because they also become uncertain of what is the bottom and what the top of the frame or the room. This way the concept of the film is really brought across to the viewer with the use of camera angles.

Figure 11: Retrograde (2010, Julianna L. Steingrimsdottir). Film still courtesy and copyright Julianna L. Steingrimsdottir.

24 In the film Pito (2008), directed by Mark Summerville and choreographed by Taiaroa Royal and Taane Mete, there are also many different angles used. Two male dancers are displayed as two wild animals that wake up somewhere in a forest, that evolve from primitive beasts into two drag queens. In the first scene the two slowly wake up from a deep sleep on top of two mountains. This scene is filmed with a low camera angle, also referred to as frog’s view. Their small gestures gradually turn in to bigger movements. At the same time the camera moves from a low angle, total shot to a close shot at eye-level. The shot starts with the camera looking up toward the two men, making them appear bigger than they really are. As the camera moves in, the two dancers seem less big but their movements are getting bigger. The shot comes so close until they move out of the frame and they jump down. The second scene starts with a total shot, filmed from a high angle. This makes the dancers suddenly seem rather small and insignificant in the dark wide forest. The dancers movements are jerky, quick and small, as they try to stick together and look around anxiously to see what place they jumped in to. The high camera angle corresponds with what their movements express; they are small and insecure compared to the wide dark forest. In this film the use of the camera is very well coordinated with the narrative and the movements of the camera. In the following scene the dancers movements are doubled with a ghosting technique. With this technique previous layers are put on top of the present layer, to get a suspension of the movement. This is done to emphasis the evolution process of the dancers into drag queens. I would say that in this case the filmic methods really compliment the choreography in the frame as well as the narrative. Later in this chapter I will also look at how the sound also contributes to movement and the narrative.

Figure 12: Pito (2008, Mark Summerville). Photo: Hitesh Cheda.

25 Camera-movement Instead of maintaining the same shot, it is also possible for the camera to move. The camera can be still, and what is inside the frame moves (the bodies). Which was the case in the previous examples. The emphasis was on the movement of the subject. It is of course also possible that the camera moves too. The way it moves has great influence on how one perceives the ‘dancing in the frame’ or the choreography, it can emphasize, alienate or abrogate the movement within the frame. The camera can make very steady movements from one position, like pans and tilt’s and zoom. Or the camera can move along with the dancers in a tracking/travelling shot on a dolly for instance or with a handheld camera. Two shots in which the camera can ‘watch the movement’ are the over-shoulder and the point of view shot. The over-shoulder leaves the subject in the frame, giving us the feeling we are watching over his or her shoulder on to the other person. The point of view shot is when the camera looks through the eyes of the subject. With this shot the viewer is able to identify with the subject, because they get to see what the subject sees.42 In the film Horseplay (2010) there is a frequent use of over-shoulder and point of view shots. To show the men’s perspective there is a lot of use of over- shoulder shots. The point of view shots are used for both the men and the horses. The camera frequently takes the position of the horses to show the viewer what they see, and to make it clear that they are interacting with the two men. This way the viewer can identify with the horse and project human emotions on to them, which makes it even easier to imagine them dancing choreography. The camera also follows the movement by staying in the same place and making pan from left to right or right to left. This way the horses gradually become more distant from the camera. In this film there are also shots in which the camera follows the movement from left to right with a travelling shot, in order words, the camera moves in the same direction and at the same speed, maintaining the frame of the shot. This is a steady movement because the camera is placed on tracks, so that it can move smoothly without any unwanted movements. Although there is camera movement in these shots it is almost invisible. The movement is functional; it is done to follow the subjects. And therefor the emphasis is still on the movement within the frame. In Free Fall (2010), directed by Gautier & Guillaume Nery, the camera is also put in various angles and perspectives. This film shows a man falling from a cliff under water. The camera movement makes it look as if he is falling in open air but in reality he in diving under water. The camera moves from high angle and top shot to low angle and from side view to point of view shot. There are many camera positions used in this shot probably because the cameraman was free to move in the water. Remarkable is that the shots are all steady, while the cameraman moves freely. Perhaps the pressure under water helps to keep the movements steady. What is nice about the top shot in this film is that it also works as an over shoulder shot. We watch over the shoulder of the diver as he is falling into to what seems to be a bottomless dark sea.

42 Hinton (2011), 2.

26

There is a second type of camera movement, in which case the camera is hand held. The steady shots are pans, tilts and travelling shots on tracks. In this case the camera follows the dancers movement in a similar way, as was the case in Horseplay. When the camera is handheld, the cameraman gets full freedom to move with the dancers. In this case the camera is not giving a point of view of one of the dancers, but is moving through them, taking on the role of narrator and participator at the same time. Because the camera takes the position of ‘narrator’ in these cases, it represents a subjective perspective. When the camera is set at eye-level of the dancers, it appears as if the camera dances along with the dancers. Indirectly this results in a sense of dancing along for the spectators, possibly creating a kinaesthetic experience.43 In Theatre en Film in vergelijking (2006) a text that looks at several publications that compare film and theatre from a theoretical perspective, Chiel Kattenbelt quotes Panofsky where he says that this is partly possible because the moving camera influences the filmic space. The camera makes the filmic space dynamic, it moves too. Subsequently, in film the spectator is able to see the room from within. In theatre the room is a given, the spectator watches it from the outside, from one perspective. 44 In Hannah (2009), directed by Sérgio Cruz, shows a girl athlete with a disability swimming in the sea. She swims through the water while the camera follows her freely. Various shots are alternated, high angle shots, low angle, and side views. In this film there are no point of view shots, this way the viewer is not asked to place him or herself in the position of the main character. But the viewers do get an impression of what it would be like to swim with her in the sea.

Figure 13: Free Fall (2010, Julie Gautier & Guillaume Nery). Film still courtesy and copyright Julie Gautier & Guillaume Nery. Figure 14: Hannah (2009, Sérgio Cruz). Film still courtesy and copyright Sérgio Cruz.

43 Rosiny (1999), 129. 44 Kattenbelt, Chiel. Theater en Film, in het perspectief van de vergelijking. (Universiteit Utrecht, 2006), 68.

27 Narrative cinematography Besides emphasising the intention of the movement, the camera can also help to show the narrative of the film, as we have seen in the example of Pito. Claudia Rosiny also mentions that often the movements alone do not show a narrative, and that filmic methods are needed to carry out the narrative. (Rosiny 1999, p.?) She puts this as a negative point, however I think it does not have to be so. We could also see these examples as ‘good’ screenchoreography works, because the choreography cannot function without the filmic methods. Cinematic elements can be used to emphasise the intention of the movement, such as close ups, camera-movements, timing of the edit, the sound and so on. Of course the downside is that if not used correctly, they can have the opposite effect and decrease the impact of the intention of the movements and consequently also decrease the quality of the work. The following two works have both integrated camera-movement and other filmic methods to emphasize the intention of the movement as well as the narrative. The film Fresh - A Spaghetti and Fried Chicken Western (2008), directed by Robert Hylton, has as the name suggests, tried to make a Spaghetti Western dance film. Guessing that the fried chicken is used as a metaphor for America, next to Spaghetti stands for the low budget, new generation of Westerns that emerged in Italy. The director has combined a battle in dance with a battle in film. In this case he chose for Hip hop in combination with the Western. Both are famous for their one to one battles. Dance battles are a prominent part of the Hip Hop scene, and the Western is famous for its one to one shootouts. Furthermore, the Hip hop dancers, especially breakdancers are known for their fast footwork, and the characters in the Westerns for their fast handwork. The director has chose to emphasise the footwork in a western film setting. So the setting and the film style is that of the shootouts, but the battle style is the footwork in Hip hop dance. The director has tried to maintain the Western cinematic style, by for instance, alternating long wide shots with extreme close ups of the subjects. These elements contribute to building up the tension and the development of the narrative.

Figure 15: Fresh - A Spaghetti and Fried Chicken Western (2008, Robert Hylton). Film still courtesy and copyright Robert Hylton.

28

In Hyperscape, Asian martial art films were the inspiration for the cinematic style as well as the dance-style. When the scene get’s tense, the speed of the movements of the dancers increases as well as the movement of the camera and the timing of the shots. In confrontation between the dancer who is trying to escape and another dancer, the film shows facial close-up to emphasis the tension between the dancers. In many scenes the dancers use stunt robes to make higher and bigger jumps. These are also used in Asian films, to give the character humanly impossible skills. Again this proves that the cinematic methods are used to emphasize the movement and the narrative, without them this specific choreography could not be possible.

3.4. SPACE The second two factors I will discuss are Space and Time. The body and the camera are strongly connected to the space because it can be said that the body moves in the ‘real’ space and the camera creates the filmic space, and together they create the narrative space. The filmic space in combination with the factor time can offer possibilities for the choreography.

Dynamic space, creating spatial illusions It is often said that the film makes the space flat. The space is shown in 2d in comparison to the 3d space in real life. But as we have seen in the previous section, the filmic space is everything but static. The montage and the movement of the camera sets the space in motion and makes it dynamic. We perceive space in real life as 3-dimensional and all around us. In comparison, the lens of the camera can only capture the space in a triangular shape. The greater the distance from the camera, the wider the area that the lens captures becomes. Everything that is close to the camera will appear large and is likely to fall out of the frame. An illusion of depth can also be created when the room in front of the camera is figuratively split up in layers. When several dancers are placed at various distances from the camera, this will create an effect of depth in the image. What is characteristic for film is that the spectator can see the space from the inside. And with changes in camera positions and frame-settings the spectator becomes aware of the space outside the frame. The spectator is triggered to imagine what happens in these off-spaces. Thus on the one hand film limits the space, because the frame limits what can be seen, but on the other hand film expands the ‘viewable space’ in the sense that it increases the number of perspectives.45 Looking back at the film of Fred Astaire, in which the choreography is shot in one take and the camera follows the dancers at all times, the dancers never fall out the frame, consequently never leaving ‘room for thought’. He adapted his choreography to the movements of the camera and the other way around. He knew that if he would let the dancers move separately, for instance one dancer jumps and the

45 Kattenbelt explains how Tynjanov and Mukarovsky think film offers more perspectives than theatre. in: Kattenbelt (2006), 67, 57.

29 other rolls across the floor, the camera would not be able to follow both movements at once. The camera could only choose one dancers or go back to a total shot, in which case the shot would have to be cut in two, something Astaire did not favour. Hence his style of filming is referred to as documentary-like, recording live performances.46 In Free Fall (2010) and HOOP the spaces look limitless, because we cannot see an end. Al we see is black nothingness, giving the illusion of endless depth. In HOOP the space surrounding the dancer is black, there are no walls, floors or ceilings, giving the illusion of absolute limitless space. In Free Fall, directed by Gautier & Guillaume Nery, we see that the person is in the water, so we know there has to be a surface and a bottom, however we get the illusion that the water is endless though the repetition of the shots, slow motion and variation of camera angles. In HOOP the movement space is also increased because there is no gravity. The dancer and the hoop move around freely as if in outer space. They can make as many turns as they want without ever touching a floor. This way front, back, up and down can be wherever the dancer or the director wants it to be. Giving the illusion of endless perspectives. The lighting and the edit have also altered the filmic space in HOOP. Additional hoops, glowing with light, give the impression that the dancer is caught in a tunnel of light that looks similar to a time warp.

Figure 16: HOOP (2010, Marites Carino). Film still courtesy and copyright Marites Carino.

46 Hinton (2011), 1.

30 In Fl-Air (2010), directed by Laura Vanborm, the filmic space also gives the illusion that there is no floor. In this film the dancers jump across the frame from left to right but never come down. In the edit all the downward shots are cut out, keeping the ‘in the air’ shots, giving the illusion of endless suspension. Probably there is a trampoline underneath the dancers, otherwise they would not be able to make such high and complicated jumps, but it has been left out of the frame. This creates choreography made solely out of jumps, something that would never be possible outside film. In Retrograde it is the angles and the movement of the camera that influence the filmic space and the movement of the dancers. The camera gives the illusion that gravity has turned upside down. The one thing that breaks the illusion is the space setting. The props in the space are not reacting to the gravity, while the clothes and the hair of the dancer is. The props are probably meant to be like this because they are still on the bottom of the filmic space, but the dancers are stuck to the sealing. So their hair should fall downward in the direction of the furniture.

Figure 17: Fl-Air (2010, Laura Vanborm). Film still courtesy and copyright Laura Vanborm.

Post-production; manipulation of the filmic space In Hyperscape the space is manipulated by various cinematic elements. Most remarkable are the manipulations of the space created in the postproduction. In the first scene of Hyperscape, shot in 4 by 3 resolution, an imprisoned dancer tries to escape his cell and literally kicks down the walls of the cell. As he does this, the frame changes from 4 by 3 to widescreen resolution, 16 by 9. This initiates a pursuit through many spaces, where he encounters many dancers. These spaces are connected through the edit and the continuous movement of the dancers. For example, the protagonist jumps from the stairs in one room to come down in the next. So the movement of the dancer continues but the space changes.

31 Also in the film Val (2010), directed by Joris Hoebe and choreographed by Boukje Schweigman, several spaces are connected through the edit and the movement of the camera or subject. Additionally one of these locations is created with a green screen. The first scene starts with a wide shot of a horizon of a farmland. The camera moves downward, sinking in the earth while filming the layers of dirt until the image is blacked out. Gradually we see spots of light, making it clear that the darkness is now that of space. The black out has connected two different locations, creating a dissociative transition. In the space a dancer slowly moves toward the camera, until he falls down to earth and lands on the farmland from the previous shot. This transition is made with a clear cut from one to the next. The falling movement of the dancers is the continuing factor that combines the two. The space location is made with a green screen. The dancer is moving in front of a green screen and the desired background is added in the postproduction. Although the green screen offers many possibilities for alternative spaces it quite expansive and not often used in screenchoreography work. A last example in which the space is manipulated in the post-production is 12Sketches. Like in Hyperscape with the help of cuts the dancer jumps from one space to another in less than a second. Only this time the dancer does not jump to other spaces but to different positions in the same space. The animation added on top of the footage also changes the filmic space. Because it changes the space it also influences the movement of the dancers. But the dancers can also influence the animation, triggering an interaction between dancers and animation. Sometimes the animation is drawn over the dancers, as if the dancers are absorbed by the space. In other scenes the space surrounding the dancers is replaced by stills of other locations. Or the screen is split in two, creating a split screen in which two different spaces are set next to each other. These two spaces are connected with the animation that continuous from one into the next, and the dancers who can also move from one to the other.

Figure 18: Val (2010, Joris Hoebe). Film still courtesy and copyright Joris Hoebe.

32 3.5. TIME

In this section I will look at the movement of time and the time of the movement. Examples will be given in which the montage creates a unison in time and space and the images. In the montage, the focus shifts from the rhythm of the dance to the rhythm of the images. This paragraph looks at how the time in screenchoreography can be manipulated, and how this affects the movement.

Montage Before I look at the concept of montage it is good to state that time, even when not manipulated, we experience time in film different from time in real life. The composition of the frame in combination with the movement in the frame can affect the way we experience time. For instance in a total shot with a dynamic content, the movement appears to be shorter in time than it is. Similarly, even when subjects travel a great distance in space, the visible movement on the screen is minimal in a wide shot. When a scene is one minute in real life, the same minute can feel as ten minutes on film. This is the reason why in stage-adaptations or camera- reworks, the actual performance is cut to a shorter version. In film there are linear time structures and combined time structures. In film the time is not continuously on-going and irreversible. Time can be manipulated in many ways, sped up or slowed down and freezing of time. And in case of a narrative, the timeline can be shortened or stretched, and it can show flashbacks and flash-forwards and simultaneous actions or two timelines at the same time.47 Digital non-linear editing systems have made it much easier to manipulate time. And even without a narrative the choreography can connect a sequence of images though the montage and create a film time. In some examples I have discussed in the section on space, the montage made it possible for the choreography to expand over several rooms. Here the connection between time and space can be seen as examples of “räumlichen Ubiquität und zeitlichen Simultanität”.48 This means that the sequence is constructed on the concept of simultaneity in time and space, a construction that gives new meaning to movements and gestures.49 For instance, in real life it is physically not possible to jump from one space to the next in one second. In film the edit makes it possible, it creates a new time-space relation. However there has to be a factor that creates a visual continuity in order to keep up the illusion of continuity.50 In screenchoreography the movement is often the factor that keeps up this illusion of visual continuity. This movement can be that of the subject, the camera or the movement created in the montage. In the narrative films Pito, Hyperscape and Val, the visual continuity is created through the movement of the subjects and the montage.

47 Kattenbelt (2006), 78. 48 Rosiny (1999), 153. 49 Kattenbelt explains the construction principle based on simultaneity of Tynjanov. In: Kattenbelt (2006), 51. 50 Ibid., 60.

33 Transitions Making a montage is not only choosing which images to use and in what order, the director also has to choose how to make transitions from one to the next frame, shot or scene. He can use a hard or soft cut. The transitions in videodance are mostly hard cuts, this means that the shots are placed directly after each other. To make a soft transition there are various techniques, such as the cross dissolve, which blends one frame into next. This is often used to connect the two shots together. Or a dip to black, used to announce a new scene, similar to the black out in theatre. This is also dependent of the cinematic style and the concept of the film. For instance, in Hyperscape the theme of the film is the escape attempt of the imprisoned dancer, consequently the films shows a lot of fast and sudden movements. The camera movement is adjusted to the speed of the subject’s movements and so is the edit. The rhythm of the edit is fast with many hard cuts.

Time manipulation According to Rosiny in many screendance productions the time structure is linear, in which the perceived time is given by the time of the choreography/movement. Or there is a narrative structure achieved through combining various movements in the montage. She also mentions that in many screendance productions there is a lack of a specific concept for the use of time in the montage, no conscious choices are made on the construction of time in the edit. And that the course of time is often a concatenation of space, woven together with a mobile camera.51 However it must be taken into account that Rosiny wrote this in 1999, and a lot has changed since then. It is true that certain time tricks are not often seen in screendance, like the flashback and flash-forward. But in screenchoreography work this is the case because these works often are not based on a narrative but on a concept. And the fact that these works are short films, most of them less then fifteen minutes. The following examples do use time-tricks that have an alienating effect on the movement. These time tricks transforms the dance movements as well as their dramatic effect, as the movements become independent of dance’s gravity. For instance, jumping and falling can become unreal to the viewer because the momentum is changed. The jump has no landing and the falling no cause. Slow Dance (2010), directed by Joe Cobden, is as the name suggests, a film in slow motion. The entire film exists out of one shot with one camera. The narrative is that of a woman in a pub trying to get to a man across the room, but is stopped by other men on the way. There are many facial close ups, emphasizing the emotions of the woman. Turns and other accents are shown in normal time, followed by extreme slow motion of the end of the turn and a lean toward the man, to exaggerate her longing toward the man. In several shots of Retrograde the time is reversed, causing the movement to be reversed too. This has an alienating effect on the audience because they cannot identify with these movements anymore. Secondly it compliments the concept of the film, because it shows that the two dancers want to go back to before the gravity was turned up side down. Fl-Air uses slow motion, fast forward, reverse and time-stops to suspend the moment the dancers are in the

51 Rosiny (1999), 153-154.

34 air. The edit shows only the upward motions. All other shots are left out of the montage creating jump-suspension choreography. The time stops are made when the dancers are at their highest point of the jump. In the last scene these stops are used to double the image. A second shot is put on top of the first one, showing two dancers in the air, one in still and the other one moving. These double shots make it look as if the dancers are performing a jumping duet.

Figure 19: Slow Dance (2010, Joe Cobden). Film still courtesy and copyright Joe Cobden.

Time-lapse are made up out of series of still images, put after each other and played at a high speed, meaning many frames per second, so that they create movement. The time-lapse photography can be seen as the opposite of high-speed photography. For a time lapse, one picture is taken every minute and then played back really fast, so that extremely slow movements in real life becomes noticeable for the human eye. This is done to show the opening of a flower, which normally takes a day, in less than thirty seconds. A high speed camera does the opposite it records many frames per second, making it possible to show an extreme slow motion of fast movements, like jumps. An acceleration/structure of the movement in time-laps sequences can be comical or alienating. The film Tachometer (2008), directed by Philip Bussmann, shows a time lapse of people. One woman stands in the middle moving really slowly. When the shots are sped up, the woman’s movements are seen at normal speed while the other people are moving so fast that they are reduced to colourful moving lines. The montage can also make the movement or the dance. For instance still frames edited in a certain rhythm. This type of film is called a stop-motion film, first used for animations. A musical score often provides the rhythm for the montage in these cases. Even without the actions within the frame, these image-sequences produce an imaginary film-time. This is partially the case in Tachometer but even more so in 12Sketches, in which the animation is made up out of still frames.

35

Figure 20: Tachometer (2008, Philip Bussmann) Film still courtesy and copyright Philip Bussman.

Rhythmical montage Filmmakers can play with the correlation between movement-time, the time within the frame, and montage-time, the timing of the cuts. In screendance compared to other film genres, this is even more so because it is all about the dance, the rhythm of the movement. The rhythm of the cut therefor strongly influences how we perceive the dance. How the rhythmical montage is based on the musical score will be explored in the next section.

3.6. SOUND In this section the concept ‘Tone’52, or ‘Sound’ is explored. The sound a film consists out of three types of sound, the musical soundtrack, ambient sound and human sounds. The combination of these sound layers creates the acoustic perception space.

The Soundtrack Music and dance have always been connected. Music sets the timing for the dance; it sets a framework for the choreography, the movement tempo, the segmentation, the phrasing, and articulation of the movement sequence. It provides the rhythmic basic structure for the movements as well as the movement character. In (post) modern dance practices there have been experiments on the type of correlations between music and dance. However in videodance the music is most often only used to point out the rhythm for the movement within the frame and of the montage. Consequently these works only have a simple musical soundtrack. Either used to set the rhythm of

52 Rosiny (1999), 169.

36 the choreography, or added later to set the rhythm for the edit and consequently the rhythm of the choreography. Thus, the musical-rhythm and the movement-rhythm compliment each other or the musical-rhythm is synchronized to the image-sequence. Many of the examples that I have discussed only have a musical soundtrack without any additional sounds. Vertiges, Weights of Sorrow, HOOP, Slow Dance, Tachometer, Fl-Air, 7tonnes2, Paganini For Face and Free Fall only use one musical soundtrack. Most of these have used the musical score to provide a rhythm for the edit. It is however not always a negative point when there are no additional sound-layer added to the musical score. What is more important is whether or not the audio and the imagery are in harmony, whether they compliment each other. Paganini for Face is a face-choreography made specifically on a musical score of Paganini, and therefor this score increases the character of the movement. Additional sounds would have diverted the attention from the correlation between the musical score and the movements. A musical soundtrack can also influence the way we perceive the images. According to David Hinton the music influences the senses even more than the images, exactly because our eyes are our primary sense. We automatically add images to the sounds we hear. The music influences how you see the images, not so much the other way around. If you hear the same soundtrack under two different set of images, this does not so much influence the way you experience the music as it does the way you experience the images.53 Free Fall is another film in which changing the musical score or adding additional sound would not necessarily increase the quality of the film. Water sounds for instance, would have broken the illusion of a free fall, but sounds of wind would have increased the believability of the illusion.

Soundtrack with sound effects Additional sounds can contribute to the pointing out of the narrative and the quality of the movement. However for dance sound can have great meaning especially sounds coming from the body. Adding the sound made by the dancers increases the quality of the movement. From the sound we can derive how the movement is performed, and what the intention behind the movement might be. Feet moving on a floor with direct, sudden and strong movements sound very different from slow and gentle brushing movements with the feet on the same floor. Secondly, additional sounds can make the narrative more comprehensible. A transition from outside to inside space could be announced with the help of a change in the soundtrack, making it sound more hollow because we are looking from the outside in. In my opinion it is the lack of a decent soundtrack that compliment the movement and the concept of the film that can make you feel as if you are watching the dance behind a glass-window. It makes the fact that film is a 2d medium more apparent. The dance is done in a vacuum; it feels distant, alienating the viewer. Val, Hyperscape, Pito, Body of War and 12Sketches are examples in which the additional sounds really compliment the movement and the narrative. They also have sound effects and the sound of the dancers. In Body of War we also here a man’s voice, operating as narrator for the

53 Hinton (2011), 3.

37 images. In Hyperscape, Pito and Val the sound effects really emphasize the actions and the mood of the film. They use a mix of recorded sounds and sound effects that have been added later. For instance in Hyperscape, for ‘hits’ in the fighting scenes, additional sounds have been added to give the illusion that the movement had an impact. In Pito the sound of breathing is recorded but additional breathing sounds are added to compliment the animal-like movements. In 12Sketches the soundtrack for the animation is added later. This sound is made up out of many sounds because there is no matching recorded soundtrack. These sounds later change into a musical score, creating the rhythm for the dancers and the animation.

Rhythmical montage The following two examples have a different type of soundtrack. The original sound recordings of the shots make up the musical score. In Alt I Alt / All in All (2004), directed by Torbjørn Skårild, the musical score and the montage were created at the same time. The film shows a high board diver preparing for a jump. The tension builds up the expectation of a magnificent jump. This tension is build up until the moment of the actual jump. The expectation is not fulfilled, because the diver only makes a small jump and also does not hit the water. The sounds are all created by the movements in the frame, the moving board, the diver landing on the board, his breathing and so on. The rhythm of the edit also provides the rhythm of the musical score. The tempo of this rhythm gradually increases, consequently speeding up the rhythm of the cuts and the rhythm of the music, to build up tension before the big jump. When the diver never hits the water afterwards, it appears that it was all about the rhythm of the preparation, the harmony of the musical rhythm and that of the shots.

Figure 21: Alt I Alt / All in All (2004, Torbjørn Skårild). Film still courtesy and copyright Torbjørn Skårild.

Birds is created slightly different than Alt I Alt. This type of screenchoreography is what David Hinton refers to as ‘docu-choreography’. These are choreographies that are made by editing existing film- sequences and shots into a certain rhythm. David Hinton looked for existing nature footage of wild birds from the BBC to create this film. The original bird sounds were used in combination with rhythmical loops to create a musical score for the film. Only after the film was edited to this score. Choreographer Yolande Snaith helped him to create the choreography with the montage. Hinton chose to make it a continuous edit, a travel across the world, showing dancing birds from each

38 continent.54 However, he could have made many different edits, using the same track. He could have made the cuts based on the colours of the birds for instance, of perhaps combining specific shots to make it look as if the birds are reacting on each other. There are many ways in which he could have combined the shots to create a unity. The sound would still be the factor to maintain continuity in time and combine the shots to create one continuous sequence.

Figure 22: Birds (2000, David Hinton). Film still courtesy and copyright David Hinton.

The next chapter reflects on the findings from this chapter, by trying to answer the following questions. How exactly did these examples use the cinematographic elements to create choreography and how do they offer different possibilities for choreographic practices? And what other, not yet explored possibilities can we think of in terms of creating movement in screenchoreography? What does this cinematic view on choreography entail? What does this say about the work itself and how does a cinematic view on dance challenge the way we perceive it? Afterwards, it looks at the influence of cinematography on choreographic practices in theatrical dance. It will discuss several dance performances in which traces of cinematography can be found in the structure of the movement and choreography.

54 Podcast audio-clip podcast of: David Hinton's talk at Dance for Camera Nights, http://www.southeastdance.org.uk/part09birds.mp3.

39 Chapter 4 Expanding artistic boundaries of choreography and dance

This chapter reflects on the findings of the previous section and tries to define how they have expanded the boundaries of choreographic practices. The first section looks at choreography in screenchoreography work, defining what possibilities can screenchoreography offer choreography, and how this influences the way we look at dance. The second section looks at what cinematic influences are evident in choreographic practices in theatrical dance.

4.1. Possibilities for choreography This section looks at how the choreographic boundaries that we know from theatrical dance have been expanded in the screenchoreography examples discussed in chapter two. It also gives suggestions on how these works could have done so even more and how the cinematic approach toward dance influences the way we perceive and understand dance. Furthermore, it looks at how screenchoreography can expand the boundaries of choreographic practices in screendance, discussing suggestions given by screendance practitioners and scholars. And how on the other hand, choreography in film expands the screendance field. This section will maintain the structure of the previous section, reflecting on each of the five perspectives given by Rosiny separately.

BODY In reflection to the findings of the previous chapter from the perspective of the body, we can ask the following questions. How does the cinematography affect the movement of the subject? What does this mean for choreographic practices? How can the cinematography challenge the parameters of dance? In what way does the film medium influence the dancing body? And how can choreography expand the notion of screendance?

Alternative movement-vocabulary It was said before that in the majority of screenchoreography work the movements are made specifically for and with the camera, (with the exception of Birds) and that this is why they are often not directly linkable to a dance style. But why is this so? It is not because we see a lot of pedestrian movement in screenchoreography and screendance in general. Because this is something the postmodern dance practitioners already introduced into theatrical dance. It is also not specifically because it shows movements based on combat actions like martial arts or ritual dances. These too have been performed in a theatrical context. It is much more the effect that the cinematography has on the movements, that allows choreographers to think outside their regular movement vocabulary. Firstly, they approach the movement and the process of choreographing differently because they have to think about the movement of the subjects in the frame as well as the movement of the

40 camera and the edit. This is something that is already a given when working in cinema. Secondly, they are aware of the fact that the dance is mediated through the screen, affecting the way it is perceived. The cinematography allows them to stylize and choreograph traditional movement vocabulary and distort it so that it looks nothing like the original dance movement. At the same time they can use non-traditional dance movement material and transform it into dance. Thus we can say that more types of movement have the potential to be choreographed and become dance movements, because of the cinematography and the fact that they are shown on a screen. Because the movement is not directly traceable to existing dance vocabulary, our senses and our perception patterns are challenged. But we are likely to accept these movements as dance, because we perceive them through the screen. Maya Deren suggests that the absence of the live performer allows us to maintain distance and see it as a double in alternative world.55 Thus, it influences our perception of the movement, regardless if we perceive the image in the film as real or not. Chiel Kattenbelt suggests that this kind of illusion is best kept, when the cinematographic elements are not visible. The more the cinematographic apparatus is transparent, the more we become immersed. So even when the represented world is obviously not real, everything that happens is plausible.56

The cinematic body If we continue this line of thought, this would mean that the cinematography also makes it possible to show movement of any type of body. In fact, we have seen in several examples that it is not necessary for a work to show human bodies in order for it to be labelled as ‘screenchoreography’. For instance, the film Horseplay shows the choreographed movement of horses, 7 tonnes 2 shows an elephant on a trampoline and 12sketches shows animated shapes in combination with human bodies. In all these examples the movement is stylized as dance through the cinematography. In Birds for example, it is specifically through the edit that the movement of the birds is transformed into dance on the screen. Birds is one of the first films shown on a screendance festival as ‘screenchoreography’ without human bodies. That is why it caused quite some debate in the screendance field when it was first screened. According to Hillary Preston Hinton breaks the body-centric approach to dance-film by removing the bodies from the screen, consequently the ‘dance’, or the ‘choreography’ invites a more extensive viewing of dance. And if it the body is not the given means of communication then it is the formal qualities of the choreographic content that remain.57 This means that on the screen, the dance is not bound to its theatrical parameters. Not only does this mean that any type of movement created by any type of body can be dance on the screen. It also means that screenchoreography as an art form, is not bound to the parameters of theatrical dance.

55 Deren, Maya. “Cinematography: The Creative Use of Reality”. In: The Avant-Garde Film: A Reader of Theory and Criticism, ed. P. Adams Sitney. (New York: Anthology Film Archives 1978.), 65-66. 56 Kattenbelt, Chiel. “De rol van technologie in de kunst van de performer.” In: Theater & Technologie. Havens, Henk. Kattenbelt, Chiel. Ruijter, Eric de. Vuyk, Kees. (ed.). (Amsterdam: Theater Instituut Nederland, 2007), 20. 57 Preston, Hilary. “Choreographing the frame: a critical investigation into how dance for the camera extends the conceptual and artistic boundaries of dance”. In: Research in Dance Education. (Vol.7, No. 1, April 2006), 76, 79.

41

Affect on perception The fact that we perceive the dance through the screen has an affect on our perception, because screenchoreography is not restricted to the parameters of theatrical dance. Therefore, these screenchoreographies can challenge our notions of dance. It is likely that this visual experience is stored in our memory, and that we recollect it the next time we see the same movement in a theatrical setting. To take Horseplay as an example, the next time we see two horses chasing each other in the meadow, it is possible that we will remember the scene from the film. If so, it influences the way we perceive their movement in real life.

CAMERA In what way does the camera challenge the dance movement? How does the camera change the movement in the frame and how can a camera create movement? How does this influence the choreography and what possibilities does it offer? How is the perspective of the camera lens different from our own? What does this say about the way we perceive the movement on the screen in contrast to live movement?

Different perspective How exactly does the lens of the camera change the way the movement is perceived? First of all we have seen that the camera perceives the space different to the human eye. This means that choreographers need to think about the framing of the shot and the position of the camera in relation to the subject in front of it. Therefore, the camera replaces the eye of the viewer. In theatre the viewer’s visual experience is dependent of their position in the auditorium, as well as the possibility to choose what they look at. Even though the gaze of the spectator is also slightly directed in the theatre, with the use of light and other staging elements, each spectator makes his or her own selection of the choreography. In cinema, these choices are already made for them. The perspective is the same for each viewer, independent of the position in the auditorium. And because the choreography is recorded by a camera and mediated through a screen, everyone perceives the same version of that choreography. Furthermore, a stage performance is never twice the same, and can be still be altered night after night. In this sense, screenchoreography is limited, because it offers only one perspective on the choreography. However, the camera offers a view from within and can move between the dancers, which is not possible in the theatre unless the theatre conventions are broken. Moreover, the fact that the perspective is set, does not mean that everyone perceives it the same way. Everyone will interpret the movements differently and give different meaning to them. This is a possibility that screenchoreography offers to choreographic practice. On the screen, the number of signifying layers can be increased. This does not mean that this is not possible in theatrical dance. However, the

42 cinematography makes it possible to change the focus point or create a disjunction between the movement and its meaning.

New signifying layers The close up is a cinematic element to frame the image that does just that. One the hand, as a type of cinematic shot, the close-up is connected to the narrative storytelling and the character, or subject.58 The emotional state of the character is quite literally enlarged and thus increased. This effect can also be used in screendance works. The close-ups can be used to highlight specific actions or movements to underline the narrative or concept. When there is no narrative, it can be used to enlarge movements and increase their significance. In screendance the close up has offered new perspectives on the dancing body in micro-choreographies. Brannigan points out that micro-choreographies show details of the body, small gestures that would not be noticeable on the stage. It can emphasise movements that would seem unimportant at first.59 Furthermore, these close ups can give new meaning to movements and gestures. Brannigan uses the term ‘gesture-dance’ for choreographies in which the ‘expressive charge’ of the gesture is the leading factor. She quotes Godard when he uses the theatrical dance work of Pina Bausch to show how a disjunction between ‘signifying charge’ and signifier can be possible. In Nelken (1982) this disjunction is created when domestic gestures as peeling potatoes is transformed into a seductive act.60 In this case it is the performer that can create this distortion between the movement and what it signifies. In screenchoreography this can be done with the cinematic elements.

Affect on perception Nonetheless, even when the choreographer and the director try to bring in these new layers, does it really challenge the viewers’ perception? This question cannot be completely answered without an elaborate examination of several viewers. We can however try to answer it partially with the information we have gained from the body perspective. We established that we perceive the movements different from real life because they are on the screen. And that we are more likely to believe in this alternative world, no matter how unreal it seems. In other words, we immerse in the alternative world. Therefore, it would be likely that when choreographers place certain gestures in a new context, for instance by only showing close ups, our perception is challenged. But, because we are able to see this as an alternative world, we are more likely to accept these new forms of movement. And we are also more likely to perceive alternative layers of meaning than we would in the theatre. The perception of the viewer is also challenged when the camera moves along with the movements in the frame, because the viewer sees what the camera sees. Therefore, he or she will

58 Ibid., 39. 59 Brannigan (2011), 40-41. 60 Brannigan (2011), 93.

43 feel as if they are apart of the happening, feeling more immersed as a result. The viewer is challenged to keep up with that movement. The eyes are invited to move along with the movement in the frame, which might trigger an embodiment of the perception. In other words, the viewer might feel a kinaesthetic response. However, this type of immersion only works when the illusion is not broken and the cinematic apparatus stays transparent. Any unwanted camera movement diverts the viewer’s attention from the intended movement and stops the immersion. Peter Ward, film and theatre producer, mentions in his book Picture Composition for Film and Video, (2003) that there are certain unwritten rules when applying camera-movement in film and television. The problem according to Ward is that viewers are used to film sequences in which the camera-technique is almost invisible. If the movement of the camera is not fluently coinciding with the movements in the frame, it will divert the attention of the viewer from the narrative and the subject to the movement of the camera. In screenchoreography work it will divert the attention of the viewer from intended movement to unintended movement. And thus distort the viewer’s perception and distance them instead of creating a greater kinaesthetic experience or immersion.61 This non-transparency can however, also be exploited, causing the opposite effect. A non- screendance example in which this is the case is the film Cloverfield (2008), directed by Matt Reeves. This entire film is shot with a handycam. The shots on the camera are one of the last recordings before Aliens destroy the city of New York. The jittering movements of the images emphasize the fear of the cameraman, who is also the protagonist in the film. This character is introduced with a flashback, so that we know who is behind the camera. Because the protagonist is also the cameraman, the spectator can identify with him because they are looking ‘through his eyes’ with the help of the camera. And because the camera directly mediates the movements of this person, we see this movement, which might have a kinaesthetic reaction in our own bodies. If the latter can be realised it would be interesting to explore how this could be achieved in screendance. This could also possibly add new layers of meaning to the movements on the screen.

SPACE In what way is the cinematic space different from real space? How does this influence the movement and what possibilities does it offer to choreographic practices? What does this say about the way we perceive the movement on the screen in contrast to live movement?

Cinematic space (time) Firstly, cinematic space differs from space in live performances, because it is not restricted to the parameters of theatrical dance. It is not bound the theatre stage or one outdoor location. On the screen the choreography can be performed in any space and in more than one. This is also a time factor. In theatrical dance the audience is mostly seated at one position for the duration of the

61 Ward, Peter. Picture Composition for Film and Video. (1996) (Oxford: Focal Press, second edition 2003), 203-204.

44 performance, and perceives the performance live. The dancers share the same time and space as the audience. Although the audience in cinema equally remains in his seat during the film, the space and time on the screen is not the same as that of the audience. Even performances on location cannot change the restrictions of the space-time relation. On the screen however, choreographies can cross several spaces in a matter of seconds.

Effect on movement/space illusions The cinematic space can be distorted so that it appears different than it actually is. Filmic space can only give the illusion of depth. Dancers can seem very far or close to the camera while the background seems endless, or working with depth of field in which either the front part of the space is in focus, and the back is not, or the other way around. This limitlessness of the filmic space makes it possible for choreographers to create movement that is not restricted by the usual boundaries. They are for instance not limited by gravity or real-time. Because the way the space is presented has an effect on the subject as well as the movement. For instance, excessive movement will seem insignificant when staged in a desert, shot in a wide angle. This is comparable to the micro choreographies were small movements become important. There are more tricks that can manipulate the space and its relation to the subjects, which have not been explored in these works. For instance a ‘zolly-shot’, also referred to as a ‘dolly-zoom’ that disturbs the perception of the space. In this shot is put on a dolly and tracks so that it can gradually forward and backward. In this shot the camera makes a forward zoom and a reverse tracking motion at the same time, the subject will maintain its position in the frame but the space will appear to move. The opposite effect is also possible when the camera makes a forward tracking motion but zoom out. The subject will still maintain its position in the frame but the space will appear to become bigger.

Affect on perception In both examples stated previously, the relation of the space to the subject becomes distorted. Consequently, the perception of the viewer is as well. The cinematography challenges us to understand an alternative space with a different relation towards time and subject. Furthermore, we have already established that the camera can offer different perspectives on the same space in cinema. In theatre the viewer is often only offered a frontal perspective of the performance. The camera can move through the space, giving a view from within. Moreover, the camera has different lenses which each give a different view on the same space. This again can distort the space and the perception of the viewer. For instance the fish eye lens presents the space such an extreme wide angle, that the picture becomes highly distorted at the edges. This literally changes the space and the elements within it. Something similar can also be achieved in postproduction. The space can be completely altered by adding or removing elements in the picture. And colour can change the mood of the picture or the space itself. The illusion of endless depth in Hoop for instance, was achieved by

45 blackening out the space surrounding the subjects. Again this challenges our traditional perception patterns of both space and dance. And only if the effects are made transparent are we able to immerse, so that we can give new meaning to the movements. Furthermore, our perception is also challenged when the movements of the subject continue into the space outside of the frame. As we have seen the camera can only capture a certain part of the space, with the result that subjects placed outside of the area that the lens can capture, fall out of the image. The viewer’s imagination is triggered because he or she wonders what goes on in these off-space areas. The viewer tries to fill in how the movements are continued outside the frame.

3D cinema The flatness of the film is often considered a loss for choreographic practices. Perhaps if screendance practices make us of 3d, they could create an illusion of 3d. In 3d films subjects and objects appear to move toward you, they enter the viewers’ kinesphere.62 The image is divided in several planes, so that the subject appears to distance itself from the background. Especially movement toward the camera has gained popularity among directors again, because it has the biggest impact on the viewer. The 3D illusion emphasizes the direction of the movements, so that they literally seem to be approaching the viewer. They do not just move toward the camera, creating a close up. No, this time the distance between the image and the viewer actually appears to decrease in the 3D-image. In dancefilm 3D opens up possibilities for choreography because the director and choreographer can think in terms of 3D with movement, increasing the feeling of ‘looking from the inside’ for the spectator, which could again cause a higher level of immersion. And consequently, the viewer will experience an embodied perception, causing him or her to react with the body. If a subject moves toward the camera and with 3D also toward spectator, the spectator will surely feel a response in the body that triggers them to move. And secondly, using 3D forces the director to put the focus on the movement and choreography over the storyline. The movement of the subjects and objects in the frame as well as that of the camera needs to be tightly choreographed, because a slight change could break the perspective and the 3D illusion. So again, the medium needs to be transparent, concealing all aspects of the cinematography, to create immersion.

TIME In what way is film time different from real time? How does this influence the movement and what possibilities does it offer to choreographic practices? What does this say about the way we perceive the movement on the screen?

62 The kinesphere is the personal space surrounding a person or a danser. Preston Dunlop, Valerie. Dansen nader bekeken: handboek voor het maken en bespreken van choreografieën. (Amsterdam: LCA, 1998), 167

46 Film time Firstly, similar to film space, film time differs from normal time in that it is not restricted by the parameters of dance. This means that the movements are not bound to regular time. Time can be manipulated in many ways, sped up or slowed down and freezing of time. The movements react to the film time, such as the movements in the slow motion shots in Slow Dance, or the extreme slow motion and sped up shots in Tachometer. On the other hand, it can bring unity in the shots through the edit. Shots can be edited in such a way that a series of still images can produce movement, like in stop-motion or animation film. The interesting thing in film is that the movement is not bound to normal time rules. For instance in the film Fl-Air we see several movement stops, where the movement is paused by prolonging the duration of a single, still frame. These stops show dancers at their highest point in the jump. The freeze in time makes it possible to change the position of the dancer without the dancer himself. Or the movement could be created by a change in camera-angles and perspectives. A suggestion would be to use this stop in movement and time to make a 360 degrees turn around the performer with the camera. Of course it is not possible to make a travel or pan while the dancer is actually jumping, because the dancer cannot stay at the same position. The shot could be created with the help of several cameras placed in equal distance from each other around the dancer at the level of the highest point of the jump. This way the camera’s can make a picture simultaneously of the exact moment when the dancer is in the air. These individual images can then be placed in the right order to create a circling movement around the dancer. Firstly this creates movement without the subject having to move, and secondly this offers perspectives of a jump to the viewer that he or she would not be able to see in theatrical dance.

Affect on perception What does this mean for the way we perceive the dancing on the screen? First of all, these non- movements are created through the cinematography and are not possible in real time. Therefore these stops in time challenge our perception and our notion of dance and its relation to time and space. Furthermore, because the duration of these non-movements is increased in these stops, they become significant moments in the film. Brannigan argues that these suggested stops, or moment of non-movement, are equally important as movements. “Static or still moments within dancefilm must be considered with the same weight and attention as those moments of hyperbolic motion. However, she also states that in film there can never be a genuine stop of movement, film is continuous, it does not stop, the stop can only be suggested. The slowing down or suspension of recognizable movements is a common means of breaking a gesture away from utility, developing a physical action into something dance-like through manipulating its progression through space and time.” She based this on Lyotard’s theory of A-cinema. He suggests that the two poles of cinemas are ‘immobility and excessive movement’. 63 Lyotard explains that for an object (or subject) to be valuable it has to move. It has to proceed from other objects and disappear to make room for other still objects. This process

63 Brannigan (2011), 16.

47 is continuous in film and is similar to the process of production and consumption.64 Judith Walton, teacher of Performance studies at the Victoria University in Melbourne, goes even further by saying that still frame is never really still, because it suggests movement. She is referring to a photograph of a dancer, taken in the middle of a movement. For one, because it has traces of movement. The body position and the tensed muscles tell us there was movement when the picture was taken. Secondly, it triggers our kinaesthetic memory. We link this pose to movement we have seen before. Thirdly, there is a sense of movement because our eyes have to move across the image to see it as still. Therefore, our eyes create a moving image. Also, in dance there are always moments in between the movements. This is a paradox, because it means that a dancer is never really still. There are only transitions from one to another movement. According to Walton, film exposes the paradox of movement: interweaving of stillness and motion, because it is made up out of stills turned into motion.65 So what this means is that the stops in film challenge our perception, because the parameters of dance are challenged. We know that these movements cannot be suspended in real time, therefore we automatically continue the line of the movement in our heads. Similar to the way the off-space movements, these still movements trigger our imagination to finish the movements.

SOUND What is the role of sound in screenchoreography? How does this influence the movement and what possibilities does it offer to choreographic practices? How does it affect the way we perceive the movement on the screen?

Musical score The sound or the music is an important aspect of screenchoreography. Like in theatrical dance, the musical score can provide a rhythm for the choreography. In screenchoreography it also provides a rhythm for the choreography of the camera and the edit. Besides the musical score additional sounds can be used such as sounds made by the performers, ambient sounds or sound effects. They can compliment the intention and the expressive quality of the movements by giving them an additional dimension. On the other hand, additional sounds can also create disjunction between the movement and the sound. Sound effects can also be used to create a soundtrack that matches the images. With this soundtrack a rhythmical edit can be made to create movement of the images. An example of a rhythmical edit producing movement is Birds. This offers more possibilities for choreography because the rhythmical edit makes it possible to choreograph and move still images. In this film the sound also provides a ‘leitmotiv’ for several subjects, actions and spaces. Specific sounds can correspond to

64 Lyotard, Jean-François. “Acinema.” In: Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A film Theory Reader. (ed.) Rosen, Philip. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 354-356. 65 Walton, Judith. “Still moving still.” In: Dance Dialogues: Conversations across cultures, artforms and practices. (2006), 3-4.

48 movements and subjects to point out who, what or which movement will follow.

Affect on perception Additional sound effects can also compliment the movement of the camera, therefore automatically intensifying whatever it tries to bring across. Equally, when additional sounds distort the expressive charge of the movement within the frame, our perception is challenged. Sound effects can also challenge the perception of the spectator when the source of the sound is not visible in the picture. Sounds coming from outside the ‘frame’ or ‘image’ can make the viewer think about what is making this sound and where it is located.66 Similar to the effect that the off-space can create when movement is done partially outside the frame, or when a subject moves out of the frame completely. Surround sound is often used to point out movement toward the frame, from outside to inside, imitating the Doppler effect in real life. The volume and frequency of the sound gradually increases along with the subject that moves toward the frame, until it is inside it. An example of such a shot is an airplane that comes into the frame from the left sight and gradually moves out of the frame on the left. The sound will be equally coming from the left, moving toward a high frequency when the airplane is in the shot and decreasing again as the airplane moves out of the frame again. The quality of the sound changes, which makes it easier for us to recognize the position of the object producing the sound. So if we hear a sound coming from the left, we consequently expect it to be followed by movement. In dancefilm not many directors work with the possibilities of surround sound. But I would say that this use of sound would be very useful for dancefilm because it emphasises and suggests that there is movement, even when there is no visible movement in the image. In the cinema the loudness of the sound also increases the kinaesthetic experience because the vibration of the sound can be felt in our bodies, we can ‘feel the movement’. However, this only works when the sound compliments the movements. The sound should be the sound produced by the actual movement or a soundtrack that fits the rhythm of the movement on the screen. The sound can really emphasize the intention of the visible movement and therefore increase the level of kinaesthetic response of the spectator towards it.

66 Kattenbelt (2006), 61.

49 4.2. Cinematic principals in theatrical dance choreography

The following paragraph looks at how cinematography and filmic methods have found its way into theatrical dance practices. And whether any of the methods used in the screenchoreography examples have been used in a similar way in stage works. Especially because the screen medium is one of the elements that change the way we perceive movement. So in what way does cinematography have an effect on the choreography in theatrical dance? Due to a lack of examples as well as words in this thesis not every cinematic method is discussed here. The five perspectives suggested by Rosiny once again provide the structure for this section.

“On contemporary stages nowadays we see a lot of movements that are influenced by film aesthetics, for example with a lot of fragmentations. This is a result of perception structures that have changed in the 20th century.” Rosiny67

Influence of film on stage As mentioned in chapter one, these new perception patterns followed the general development towards intermediality and the blending of art forms since the twentieth century. In theatrical dance practices the search for new theatre spaces constituted to the blending of art forms.68 Next to the choreographers that started to experiment with dance on film, others experimented with film on stage. Some choreographers used filmic concepts in a sense that they integrated filmic projections, screens and live recordings in the performance. A well-known example is Live (1979) made by Hans van Manen. In Live a female interacts with a cameraman through the lens of the camera. Her projection is recorded live and projected directly on the screen. Halfway the dancer leaves the stage to dance in other rooms of the theatre leaving the audience with a projection of the recordings made by the camera.69 In Live Hans van Manen has used filmic methods in a performance in an attempt to integrate film into a dance performance, consequently blending the two art forms. There is another way in which filmic methods can be integrated into the performance, a more discreet, less obvious way. A type of integrating that is more relevant to this thesis. In these cases filmic elements or cinematography has found its way into the choreography itself. Meaning that specific cinematic elements have been used as choreographic concepts. The examples used here are but a few, there are many other examples that could have been used instead. However, I have made a selection based on the works that I have seen either live or on video, and in which I believe cinematic approaches toward choreography are apparent.

67 Rosiny (2007), 70. 68 Ibid., 70-71. 69 Wildschut, Liesbeth. “Live. De intrede van de video in de danskunst.” In: Havens, Henk. Kattenbelt, Chiel. Ruijter, Eric de. Vuyk, Kees. (ed.) Theater & Technologie. (Amsterdam: Theater Instituut Nederland, 2007), 36.

50

BODY We have seen that there has been discussion about the role of the human body in screendance. Does screendance need to have bodies? Do they have to be human? These are two of the questions that come up frequently. In theatrical dance, choreographers and critics have also debated the role of the body in dance. Dance practitioners have experimented with different types of bodies, human and non-human. They have transformed bodies and explored different concepts of the body. What a body you have honey (2001) by Eszter Salamon is an example in which a human female body is transformed into an unrecognizable moving object. A female dancer puts on a white lumpy costume and becomes unidentifiable as such as soon as she wears it. At first it still resembles a human body but it is not clear whether this body is male or female, al we can see is that it has a head, a torso, two arms and two legs. It is also not clear which side is the front and which side the back. Because the costume is very flexible, the dancer is able to manipulate it in such a way that it almost seems as if the body’s joints are suddenly able to rotate to every direction. Finally the dancer transforms the white body into nothing more than a big white lump that gradually moves across the stage. The performance explores the perception of the human body and its movement limitations similar to the way Weights of Sorrow transforms human bodies into insect-like bodies with a wider range of movement possibilities.

CAMERA The close-up The close up has created a different type of choreography in screendance, in which the focus lies on gestures and small movements and the body becomes the site for movement. In Paganini for Face the site for the movement is the face and the facial muscles perform the gesture choreography. Antonia Baehr has used the idea of a close up to literally zoom in on the facial movements by creating a micro-choreography. In For Faces (2010) an audience of approximately 20 people are seated in a close circle around the four performers in the middle with their backs to each other. The performance is divided in three episodes, in which the movements gradually get bigger, more visible. In the first ten minutes we see hardly any movement, only the alert watcher can note slight changes in their positions by watching the abstracted shadow on the floor gives. The second episode shows movements in the face. Gradually the amount and the intention of the movements increase. In the end the facial expressions become very apparent. The movements are performed in a rhythm in which each performer seems to react on the person next to him, creating a movement canon of facial expressions, this time without music. The rhythm is created solely out of the sounds produced by the facial movements.

51 Perspectives/Framing We have seen that the camera offers a wider spectrum of perspectives than the theatre can. In the theatre the dance can only be seen from one side, resulting in choreographies orientated toward the audience. Choreographers have played with the conventions of frontality in theatrical dance, by changing the direction of the choreography. In Artifact (1984) William Forsythe show the same duet in several directions. The duet is performed toward the front, back, left and right wings and the ceiling. And at some parts the duets are performed in the wings, making them only partially visible to the audience. 70 The duet toward the ceiling resembles a top-shot in film and the partially hiding of movements is similar to the framing of movements in screendance. These off-stage movements can trigger the imagination of the audience similarly to those in off-spaces in screenchoreography. Mette Ingvartsen makes us feel as if we are at a concert in her solo performance 50/50 (2004). She performs certain moments with her back to the audience, as if there is an alternative audience on the other side of the stage. Concurrently, it gives the spectators in the theatre the feeling they are looking at a concert from the backstage area. Ingvartsen plays with the conventions of theatre and challenges the spectator’s perception.

SPACE The changes in direction in the performance Artifact and 50/50, can also be discussed as a spatial concept. The spectators are not moving through the space themselves and there is no camera offering them different perspectives. The direction of the choreography in the space itself changes. And it is both the framing of the choreography as well as the placement of the choreography in space that causes the ‘off-spaces’. Therefore these direction changes can be related to the manipulation of the space in screendance in the sense of framing and camera perspectives.

Movement in space Spatial manipulations have also brought other concepts for stage-choreography. In Fl-Air a ‘jump- choreography’ is created by leaving out the downward shots in the montage in order to create the illusion of an unlimited suspension. Mette Ingvartsen also made a jumping-choreography performed on a trampoline and inspired by the concept of suspension. It’s in the Air (2008) explores the limitations of the human body and how these can be manipulated. The piece shows how the movement of the performer influences the shape of the trampoline in the space and how in return, the movement of the trampoline triggers the next movement of the performer and changes the shape of the performers body. The trampoline moves the muscles of the body, without any tension in the muscles. This is also similar to the manipulation of the movement of the body in the filmic space with camera-movement and editing.

70 Bleeker, Maaike. “Step Inside!” In: Visuality in the Theatre: The Locus of Looking. (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillian, 2008), 32.

52 Spatial illusions The space can also be altered with the help of green screen or background projection mappings. In Val the green screen makes it possible to show a transition from a man floating in space toward a man falling into a field in one shot. The green screen studio was an inspiration for Why We Love Action (2008), another performance by Mette Ingvartsen. The entire setting of the performance is green, resembling a green screen studio. These movements are in a type of temporary-space, it is up to the audience to place them in an alternative space. The choreography is based on the doubling in stunt work in film and the spatial illusions created in film. The green screen environment makes it possible to interpret a stage scene in which a woman pretends to be barley able to hang to the edge of a flipped table, as her hanging from a cliff in a film.

TIME Time manipulation Filmic time and the possibilities of manipulating time have also influenced choreographers in theatrical dance. Bojana Cvejić suggests that when the procedure of montage in used in choreography, it enables the opposite effect. It does not make a unity out of seemingly heterogeneous elements, but creates a fragmentation.71 The slowing down and the speeding up of time have been used as choreographic concepts. The film Tachometer shows how the time is manipulated to show the movements of dancer in normal speed while the movements of the passing people are shown at high speed, transforming them to colourful moving lines. NVSBL (2006), another performance by Eszter Salamon shows choreography based on time manipulation. The dancers are given the task to focus their attention on the past of movement, causing the movements to be suspended in such a way, that it seems as if they stopped moving altogether. They become ‘invisible’ to the human eye.72 The movement only becomes apparent when one looks away for a few seconds, to find that, when looking back, that the ‘evidence’ of the movement is provided by the changed positions of the performers.

SOUND Using sound as a mode for choreographing is not something that came from film. Music and dance have always shared a close relationship. However we can say that the use of sound in film has stimulated choreographers to think of alternative ways in which sound can become a mode for choreographing.

71 Cvejić, Bojana. “Notes on Cinematic Procedures in Contemporary Choreography.” In: Frakcija Performing Arts Journal,( 51-52. 2009), 4 72 Ibid., 6

53 Rhythmical movement score In Alt I Alt the musical score is created with the sounds produced by the movements. The movements have been fragmented and rearranged in the order and tempo matching the rhythm of the soundtrack. In Antonia Baehr’s solo performance Rire/Laugh/Lachen (2009) a musical score made out of laughs is the bases for her laugh-performance. The score provides instructions on how to perform the laugh in terms of the length, rhythm, volume, tone and intention. The score is a musical score and a movement score in one. As a result the gesture of laughing is brought out of context. The same is done Xavier le Roy’s solo performance Le sacre du Printemps (2009). He conducts to the music of Le sacre du printemps, showing it as movement choreography. He takes the movements, or better the conducting gestures out of their normal context and therefore changing what they signify.

Fragmented sound In the film examples the sound effects coincided with the movements. They were used to connect the movements with the space or to emphasise the intention of the movement, or to point out the narrative. The sound can also not coincide with the movement intentionally to change the way the movements are perceived or to confuse the viewer. This is also a use of montage that creates fragmentation. Ivanna Müller uses recordings of spoken words in her performance While we were holding it together (2006). In this performance the performers stand still while their recorded voices are played. They talk about the situations and the places they suggest to be in. Each performer proposes a new situation. In the second scene the voices are no longer matching the performer, the voice is talking about the position of another performer. This way the spectator gets confused, he or she does not know whether to look at the person to whom the voice belongs or to the person with the position that matches the situation.

4.3 Conclusion

Trough these five perspectives we were able to discover several points that offer possibilities to choreographic practices within screenchoreography. This chapter points out how a combination of choreography and cinematography, make it possible to create movement on the screen on several levels. Screenchoreography offers possibilities to choreographic practices that can challenge our perception and therefore also our notions of choreography and dance. Theatrical dance practitioners have tried to do the same by implementing cinematographic principles into the choreography. This paragraph gives an overview of the most important findings of this chapter.

54 Expanding choreographic boundaries in screenchoreography In screenchoreography any movement is possible, made by anything and in every way. The cinematography increases the movement vocabulary for dance on screen. In screenchoreography anybody or anything can be the subject that moves within the frame. Animals and objects can both be choreographed on the screen with camera movement and through the cut. The subject body could also be that of the camera. The extended movement vocabulary and the non-human bodies are what challenge our perception as a viewer because they do not collide with the existing parameters of dance. That is why it is interesting for choreographers to experiment with screenchoreography to move across those boundaries. In screenchoreography the choreographer is not only choreographing the movement of the subjects in the frame, but the camera as well. The movement of the camera influences the movement in the frame. It can emphasize, alienate or abrogate that movement. The framing of the movement has initiated new type of choreographies. The close up introduced a new type of screenchoreography called micro-choreography. Movements or gestures that would normally not be visible, or be acknowledged as choreographed dance movement. This way the perception of the viewer is again challenged because the expressive charge of the movement is distorted. The camera can also offer new perspectives on the movement and the space. The camera is able to film the space from within, giving the viewer a view of the choreography from the inside. The movement of the camera can increase the effect of immersion on the viewer. This can make up for the lack of liveness and the 2d of screendance. However with the possibility of 3D, an illusion of 3D can be made in which the movement comes into the kine-sphere of the viewer. Causing an even greater immersion. This way the screenchoreography can also increase the kinaesthetic experience of the viewer. The space in screenchoreography offers possibilities because it is not restricted and its relation to time is different. Any type of space can be used for screendance. In the montage subject can move across several spaces in a short time-span. The theatre the viewer can only see a frontal view, whereas film can offer various perspectives. The downside is that each viewer gets to see the exact same choreography, the director’s version. The space in film can also create an illusion of depth. And as mentioned before 3D effects can help solve the lack of liveness, through movement that comes toward the audience. The perception of the viewer is challenged because the space appears different on the screen, as well as its relation to movement. Therefore film space challenges the existing parameters of dance. Furthermore, the imagination of the viewer can be triggered to fill in the missing pieces of the choreography when the subjects move out of the frame. Film time is equally not restricted to the limits of real time. The space-time relation is distorted in film, therefore film time can be manipulated in many ways. Time tricks are used to speed up movement or slow it down. With these manipulations the expressive charge of the movement can be transformed. This is a similar effect as the micro and gesture choreographies. The montage is the specific order of images in time to create movement on the screen. Arranging the shots in the right order can create unison in the images. The right order can compliment the movement and convey the

55 concept or narrative of the film. Stops in time can make non-movements significant and trigger the imagination of the spectator. Similar to film space, the film time opens possibilities for choreographic practices, because the movement is not limited by the boundaries of time in theatrical dance. The sound in a screenchoreography influences the expressive charge of the movement. Similar to the camera movement, it can either complement or alienate the movement. Many of these screenchoreography pieces only have a soundtrack. However, additional sounds can complement the movement and increase their expressive charge. Important parts in the film can be highlighted with vivid sections in the soundtrack. A rhythmical soundtrack can be the fundament on which the choreography is build. It can provide a rhythm for the movement and the edit. And even when there is no movement visible in the frame, the sound can suggest movement. Therefore, sound produced by a source outside the picture can trigger the imagination of the viewer. Sound can distort the perception of the viewer and it can help create a physical reaction, or kinaesthetic experience. The movement in a screenchoreography is produced by both cinematography and choreography. The combination of all these elements creates the final product, the choreography on the screen. In fact, it is in the edit suite that the final choreography is made, because this is where all the frames are put in order to create movement. Therefore it is necessary to include all movement and all cinematic elements in the shooting script and storyboard. Thus each element that mediates movement needs to be choreographed.

Cinematic principles in theatrical dance Cinematic elements have also found their way into choreographic practices outside the screendance world. Dance practitioners have experimented with different types of bodies, human and non-human. They have transformed bodies and explored different concepts of the body. The close up as a method to make micro-choreographies, or gestural dances, has also influenced choreographers. They have experimented with small movements and gestures. Also challenging the audience’s perception, by placing the gestures in new contexts. Choreographers can also play with the conventions of frontality in theatrical dance, by changing the direction of the choreography. When the procedure of montage is used in theatrical dance choreography, it enables the opposite effect. It does not make a unity out of seemingly heterogeneous elements, but creates a fragmentation. This fragmentation appears in the time and in the movements. The sound can also be fragmented and alienated from the movement. Or the sound of the movement can be the musical score for the movements. Both change the level of meaning of the movements and gestures, causing a disturbance in the spectators’ perception.

56

CHAPTER 5 Challenging the conceptual parameters of dance

Paragraph 5.1. points out how the choreographic developments in screenchoreography challenge the conceptual boundaries of choreography and dance. By acknowledging screenchoreography as an art form of its own it can be open at the level of structure, meaning and materialisation. Paragraph 5.2 suggests how to apply choreographic principles in the edit process. The last paragraph focuses on the screenchoreography artist. It shows how choreographers can expand their creativity and use their choreographic practices beyond screendance.

5.1 Expanding the conceptual boundaries of choreography and dance Challenging the parameters of dance with screenchoreography In chapter two we have seen that several critics question whether or not screendance has to look like the dance we are familiar with. For example, Claudia Kappenberg‘s article titled, ‘Does screendance need to look like dance?’ expresses her doubts on this debate.73 Furthermore, Douglas Rosenberg tries to discover why there is hardly any dance in screendance, and how this gives any film the potential to be discussed within a screendance context, as long as it shows choreographic trades.74 Following up on the above, if there are almost no traces of ‘dance’ as we know it in these works, then why are they labelled as screendance or screenchoreography? The answer is that it is not dance, but dance on screen. Dance on screen does not need to look like theatrical dance because it is an art form on its own. That is why the filmmakers and choreographers who created these pieces, could move beyond the parameters of theatrical dance. They acknowledged that the cinematography allows them to experiment with time, space and different bodies to create new types of movement. In other words, because the dance is on the screen, it is not restricted to the parameters of theatrical dance and therefore it does not need to look like what we know as dance. However, many choreographers do experiment with the movement of the human body in relation to the camera, time, space and sound, less experiment with different types of bodies. Mainly because critics still analyse screenchoreography work as if it is dance. Therefore, these experiments are still very much debated because both dance and cinema mainly use the human body as the subject of movement. But, as we have seen in chapter three, 7tonnes 2, Horseplay and Birds are works in which the filmmakers/choreographers experimented with different type of bodies. And it is in fact these works that are interesting for choreographic practices, because they challenge the traditional notions of dance. Hillary Preston suggests that David Hinton’s Birds challenges traditional notions of dance, because it presents an unconventional approach toward dance. This unconventional approach she mentions is thus the use of birds instead of human bodies. But if the human body is not equivalent to dance on the screen than what is? The answer to

73 Kappenberg (2009), 89. 74 Rosenberg (2006), 14.

57 this question is ‘movement’, or better ‘choreographed movement’. Traces of choreography can qualify screen related work as screendance. Preston believes that the choreographic quality is more important than the ‘dance’ in screenchoreography and screendance in general.75 She suggests a focus on the way the movement elements are choreographed on the screen, because this is what challenges the viewers perception: “It is my opinion that one of the strengths of dance-for-camera lies in the director/choreographer’s ability to choreograph the material, bodies and subjects, in a way that brings the audience altered and perhaps new perceptions of time and space, or even moves them to kinaesthetic response.”76

Looking for the choreographic quality in screendance But in what way does choreography in screenchoreography differ from choreography in theatrical dance? Does the term choreography change when we place it in a new context? Or are there certain elements that remain the same? This is the main question Butterworth and Wildschut set out to answer in their book Contemporary Choreography: A Critical Reader (2009). They define choreography as ‘the making of dance’, but that it is not confined to theatrical contexts only.77 Sophia Lycouris talks about choreography in interdisciplinary work, and proposes to define choreography as a technique of movement composition. Composing, or organizing movement is similar to writing movement. She suggests that choreography can be used to create any kind of ‘movement-related work’. She argues that by introducing this term, choreographers are liberated from the assumption that only movement, which is ‘dance’, can be used choreographically. She notes that this is not a new idea, as American choreographer Alwin Nikolais proposed the term ‘motion’ to distinguish dis- embodied movement from movement mediated by a dancer. She proposes to replace the term ‘dance’, with a wider notion of movement. This way choreographic practices in interdisciplinary choreography can be used on elements other than the dancing body, such as images, light and sound. Any element that mediates movement can potentially become a choreographic component. Screenchoreography is a form of interdisciplinary choreography, in which the cinematic elements also manifest movement that can be choreographed or ‘organized’. In fact, Lyotard already implied that cinematic elements are just as much choreographic elements in his text A-cinema, when he states that: “Cinematography is the inscription of movement, a writing with movements-all kinds of movements: for example, in the film shot, those of the actors, and other moving objects, those of lights, colours, frame, and lens; in the film sequence, all these again plus the cuts and splices of editing; for the film as a whole, movements of the final script and the spatiotemporal synthesis of the

75 Preston (2006), 76, 79. 76 Ibid., 85. 77 Butterworth and Wildschut set out to discover how contemporary choreography is concerned with dance making in an ever- expanding field of applications. To them, choreography is the making if dance. But dance is not confined to theatrical contexts only. They ask themselves if the nature of choreography changes with each new context, or if there is a constant set of principles, that define what choreography is, whatever the circumstance. Butterworth, Jo. Wildschut, Liesbeth. (ed.) “General Introduction: Studying contemporary choreography.” In: Contemporary Choreography: A Critical Reader. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009), 1.

58 narration (découpage)” and that “writing with movements – cinematography – is thus conceived and practiced as an incessant organizing of movements”. 78 Lycouris also acknowledges that when traditional notions of choreography interact with other media, this affects how we create and experience contemporary choreographic work. In other words, they challenge the viewer’s perception patterns and challenge practitioners to find new ways to work with this and go beyond these existing boundaries, which is what we have been saying so far about screenchoreography.79 So in fact, Lycouris’ proposal is very much in line with Preston’s notion of screenchoreography. Preston suggests that a focus on the choreographic quality in screenchoreography work gives choreographers and filmmakers alike the opportunity to move across the boundaries of dance and challenge the perception of the spectator. Which in turn allows screenchoreography to rise to its full potential. Thus, we should not limit screenchoreography to the parameters of dance or film, but acknowledge it as an art form of its own. An interdisciplinary art form that shows dance in terms of cinematically choreographed movement on the screen. In the following quote Weseman makes a suggestion about what a dancefilm should be that is very much in line with this notion: “So muss der Tanzfilm auch nicht mehr eine filmische Solidaritätserklärung mit der Tanzszene abbilden. Auch keinen Spielfilm mit durchgeknallten Tänzern hertsellen, die die Schauspieler ersetzen. Tanzfilm ist vielmehr etwas, das erst nog werden will.”80 This statement is equally valid for screenchoreography because his notion of a dancefilm is similar to that of screenchoreography in this thesis. Such a notion of screenchoreography allows it to remain open at the level of structure, meaning and materialisation. Claudia Rosiny states the following about the potential of screenchoreography: “In dieser Offenheit der Form bei einer Andeutung eines Sinngehalts scheint eine Chance […] zu liegen, den damit eröffnen sich neu und individuelle Wahrnehmungsweisen.”81

Broadening the field of screendance If screenchoreography is defined as dance on screen due to its choreographic quality, other screen related work with a choreographic quality could also be placed within a screendance context, given that critics and practitioners alike agree to this notion. According to Arnd Wesemann, almost every movie that plays in the cinemas today is evident to some form of choreography. For Wesemann it is especially the Asian films that can be screened as screendance. He mentions the film Kung Fu Hustle (2004) directed by Stephen Chow, as an example in which choreography is a prominent aspect. In this film the choreography, the camera, the cut, and the movement correspond in such a way that they outrank the action, drama and comedy in the film. He suggests that these films use choreography on

78 Lyotard (1986), 349, 350. 79 Lycouris, Sophia. “Choreographic environments: New technologies and movement-related artistic work.” In: Contemporary Choreography: A Critical Reader. (ed.) Butterworth, Jo. Wildschut, Liesbeth. (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2009), 350-351, 359. 80 Wesemann, Arnd. “Was ist eigentlich Tanzfilm?”. In: Das Jarhbuch von ballettanz. (2005. Nr. 55993. ), 22. 81 Rosiny (1999), 206.

59 a range of filmic elements and not just the movement of the subjects, and that therefore in Asian films the choreographic aspects are more important than say the drama and the narrative; “Es sind die Kamerachoreografien, Massenchoreografien, Explosionschoreografien, Schnittchoreografien, Schwenkchoreografien, Animationschoreografien, die die höhere asiatische Filmkunst bezeichnen.”82 Weseman even claims that successful films show traces of choreography one-way or the other. Similarly, Alla Kovgan says that generations of filmmakers have been mastering and perfecting the same choreographic principles that Maya Deren articulated about dance and cinema more than 60 years ago. She claims that: “formally, dance film collaborations in cinema […] are no different from any other films that use choreography as their language, and, as a result, possess cine-dance qualities.”83 She also thinks that work without dance or dancers in the traditional sense can possess cine-dance qualities. Thus, more screen related work can be discussed within a screendance context, therefore expanding the field of screendance. This is why Douglas Rosenberg proposes a ‘what if’ paradigm that allows a wide range of films to be re-contextualised within a screendance context and screened as dancefims. However he also mentions that the screendance festivals are rooted in dance tradition and do not embrace experimental screendance.84 But Claudia Kappenberg mentions two events that do break away from the narrow conceptions of screendance, the ‘Live Screen’ events at Sadler’s Wells in London and ‘MOVES, movement on Screen’, a film festival in Manchester. These two curate films following a notion of ‘movement’ on screen instead of ‘dance’ on screen.85 This means that slowly more screen related work can be screened and curated within a screendance context.

Positive feedback loop Gradually the number of screendance writers who agree with this line of thought increases. And when critics and practitioners alike agree on this notion of screenchoreography and screendance, there is the possibility of what Rosenberg calls a positive feedback loop. For this open notion does not limit screendance to either film or dance parameters. It is build upon the intermedial nature of the art form. This way a new theory and framework can be developed for screenchoreography, in which the quality, or the value of the work, is measured by means of choreography. And when the critics can judge the work with this specific framework, they can initiate a screendance specific discourse. Within this discourse new ideas and theories about dance on screen can be generated. Choreographers and filmmakers can in turn explore and challenge these theories with new work. Work that will possibly challenge our established perception patterns again.

82 Wesemann (2005), 16. 83 Kovgan, Alla. “Choreography: At the Crossroads of Cinema and Dance” In: Proceedings ADF (American Dance Festival) (Screendance State of the Art 1, 2006, 6–9 July, Durham, NC: Duke University), 47. 84 Rosenberg (2006), 15-16. 85 Kappenberg (2009), 90.

60 Expanding conceptual boundaries of choreography and dance At first sight it seems that screenchoreography cannot challenge the conceptual boundaries of dance because it is an art form on its own. Therefore, we could say it has no direct effect on theatrical dance. However we have seen that cinematography has been used in other choreographic practices apart from screendance. Choreographers have transformed cinematic principles into choreographic methods, for instance working with extreme slow motion or stops. Others have been inspired by the possibilities that cinematography offers dance on the screen and the affect it can have on the spectator. Some have explored how these affects can be achieved with dance in a theatrical setting, or with other modes of intermediality. Thus, in some account screenchoreography and cinematography in general has led dance practitioners and critics to challenge the parameters of theatrical dance as well. And some of these contemporary practices of choreography have stirred up the debate about the ontology of dance. For instance, performances in which there is hardly any dancing or movement at all, have challenged whether or not dance ontology imbricates itself with movement.86 Although, of course, these experiments are not all based on cinematic principles, some are. So perhaps indirectly, screendance, and other interdisciplinary art forms with a relation to dance, have helped to rethink the concept of choreography and dance. Furthermore, given the affect that screenchoreography has on the spectator; we could say that it also has an influence on the conceptual boundaries of choreography and dance. Because the parameters of dance are challenged in screenchoreography work, it deconstructs our perceptual expectations of dance accordingly. Expectations we have inherited from theatrical dance. This deconstruction results in a disturbance in the senses, or an embodied perception that might lead to a kinaesthetic experience. And so, if our expectations of dance have been deconstructed, we are likely to store these experiences in our memory. Which means we adjust our expectations accordingly for our next experience of dance, either on a screen or a stage. Moreover, in screenchoreography work the cinematography allows us to immerse in the illusion that is created on the screen. So that even two horses can appear to be dancing a duet due to the cinematography. This experience might also influence the way we will perceive two horses running in real life. We might also perceive that as a form of dancing. Therefore, at a certain level this also expands our individual notions of dance.

5.2. Editing as a choreographic process

This similarity between these processes is, according to Karen Pearlman, what makes it possible for editors and choreographers to borrow principles and methods for writing movement from each other. Many choreographers have experimented with cinematic principles in their choreographic practices, but Pearlman suggests that applying choreographic principles in the edit-process can also

86 Lepecki, Andre. Exhausting Dance: Performance and the Politics of Movement. (New York: Routledge, 2006), 1.

61 be fruitful. This ‘choreography editing’ can create more cinematic films, an idea that is shared by many dancefilm makers but not so much by filmmakers from other genres. Most filmmakers see ‘the story’ as the substance of the film, while ‘choreography editing’ demands a more abstract approach. In the latter approach the focus is on the cinematography, the writing of the movement. Nonetheless she thinks that this abstract approach with a focus on the movement can also shape emotions and the story, because choreographic tools are not just useful to shape visible movement, like in (pure dance) dance film, but also for cinematically organizing movement. Which brings us back that in fact, the editor’s job is very similar to that of the choreographer. They both shape the movement’s direction, shape, time, and emphasis into significant form. Furthermore, they both know which movements to select and which to leave out so that the overall image, or choreography, signifies what it should. Again we can apply a passage of Lyotard’s text: “Learning the techniques of filmmaking involves knowing how to eliminate a large number of these possible movements.”87 Is this not exactly what choreographers need to do when they choreograph movement phrases? Additionally, Pearlman claims that both choreographers and editors rely on their kinaesthetic empathy when it comes to shaping movement. Their physical reaction to the movement informs their intuition how to shape the movement into expressive form. Pearlman explains that this is what every spectator does in the theatre. When fully immersed in the performance, spectators will identify themselves with the dancers and possible even start to breathe in sync with them. In cinema, the editor has to be the first ‘viewer’, to match the rhythm of the ‘breath of the film’ with his or her own. By using choreographic principles editors can edit the movement in new ways. The knowledge of choreography can extend the ideas about editing. The editors can ask themselves chorographical questions to organize movement in sequences or phrases in the edit. Questions as: Is the concentration of movement high or low? Scattered or unified? Moving toward chaos or order? These questions trigger the editor to think about organizing the movement. It lets him understand how each specific composition of sequences brings forth a different meaning.88 In response to this I would agree with Pearlman that when an editor is triggered to think about the organizing of movement and frames in the edit and what meaning these sequences produce, the films could become more cinematic. Because the editor can test what meaning each movement composition produces. Thus he can figure out which type of composition or organization of movement compliments the concept or the narrative of the film best.

87 Lyotard (1986), 349. 88 Pearlman, Karen. “Editing as a Form of Choreography”. In: Proceedings ADF (American Dance Festival) (Screendance State of the Art 1, 2006, 6–9 July, Durham, NC: Duke University), 52-56.

62 5.3. The screen choreographer

When the definition of choreography changes, the definition of what a choreographer is and does will change correspondingly. In screenchoreography productions, as well as in other dancefilm productions, the film is often the result of collaborations between a choreographer and a director. To be blunt, the choreographer directs the movement within the frame and the director directs the camera and the shots. And both of them check the edit several times before the final version is brought out. Off course this is a very blunt sketch of the process, in reality it rarely goes exactly this way. There are many forms of collaboration to produce a dancefilm. A choreographer can also pick up the camera and do everything by himself, including directing and editing. As Pearlman pointed out, choreography and editing are two professions that are closely related, therefore the editor can use choreographic principles. I would then suggest that the director could also use choreographic principles or that the choreographer could take on the role of the director or cinematographer.

The choreographer as cinematographer Choreographers know how to organize movement on the stage including lights, music, costumes and stage setting, so why not in film? A choreographer can check if the movement in the shot, the lighting and the costumes, in short, the overall image or the shot complements the concept or narrative. A choreographer can also organize any type of movement-sequence in film, actions, pedestrian movement, action-sequences, explosions, car pursuits and more. They could function as a dramaturge for the dancefilm, a test-viewer, someone who pre-views if the image really says what it should say. Choreography as a process and a profession can be used in making film for more than just the ‘writing of movement’ within the frame. Choreographers already take on the roles of a cinematographer and a director in dancefilms that they produce by themselves. In these productions the choreographer takes on the role of choreographer, cinematographer and director. The editing process is often left to other people, but can also be done by the choreographer. If successful, some of them specialize or even devote themselves purely to making screendance. Eiko Otake suggests that dancers also possess the potential to become cinematographers in dancefilms, because the dancefilm is a visual art form that involves movement, strength and physical awareness.89

The director as choreographer We could also turn this around and say that the director can be a choreographer for a film. David Hinton already thinks of himself as a cinematic choreographer, as he claimed the following in his lecture: “Filmmaking is choreography”.90 This is similar to what Pearlman suggests when the editor uses choreographic principles to produce the final ‘choreography’. In this case the director decides how the movement in the image is produced. He decides how the movement will be filmed, what the camera angle and perspective will be. Bob Lockyer explains that what the director basically does is

89 Otake, Eiko.”A Dancer behind the lens.” In: Envisioning Dance on film and video. Mitoma, Judy. (ed.) (New York and London: Routledge, 2002), 223. 90 Hinton (2010), 3.

63 making his version of the choreography in his shooting script. This is similar to what we all do in the theatre. No one sees exactly the same performance because we can choose what we want to look at. Therefore we all make our own version of the same choreography. In film, the director and the editor make this choice for us, so that we all see the same version of the choreography in the film.91 Again, they function as test-viewers, the director during the shooting of the film and the editor in the edit- suite. Although I would agree whit Pearlman that the final choreography is produced in the edit-suite, because the editor can still change the order of the shots and sequences, consequently influencing what the various movements signify. In all these cases it becomes clear that choreographic principles can be used in many aspects of filmmaking. Choreographers who have a feeling for film should be able to use their knowledge on filmmaking, including other film genres besides the dancefilm. And, if choreographers can take on the role of cinematographers in other film genres, these films will be cinematic through its choreographic trades. Therefore these films can also be studied as if dancefilms, within a screendance context. Choreographers can therefore explore more types of making choreography than just the ‘writing of movement’ of the subjects within the frame. They can be cinematographers with a similar function to that of a dramaturge in theatre. They could be cinema-choreographers or choreo-cinematographers.

5.4. Conclusion Dance on screen does not need to look like theatrical dance because it is an art form on its own. Because the dance is on the screen, it is not restricted to the parameters of theatrical dance and therefore it does not need to look like what we know as dance. Focussing on the choreographic quality in screenchoreography work gives choreographers and filmmakers alike the opportunity to move across the boundaries of dance. Which in turn allows screenchoreography to rise to its full potential. Thus, we should not limit screenchoreography to the parameters of dance or film, but acknowledge it as an art form of its own. Such a notion of screenchoreography allows it to remain open at the level of structure, meaning and materialisation. This way more work can be placed within a screendance context. This notion can also imply a new framework and theory for screendance, which can initiate a positive feedback loop. Karen Pearlman suggests that editors and choreographers can borrow principles and methods for writing movement from each other. Choreography editing can create more cinematic films. However, most filmmakers see ‘the story’ as the substance of the film, while ‘choreography editing’ demands a more abstract approach. Pearlman suggest that this abstract approach, with a focus on writing movement, can also shape emotions and the story. Because choreographic tools are not just useful to shape visible movement, like in (pure dance) dance film, but also for cinematically

91 Lockyer, Bob. “A new space for dancing.” In: Envisioning Dance on film and video. Mitoma, Judy. (ed.) (New York and London: Routledge, 2002), 157-159.

64 organizing movement. Choreography as a process and profession can be used in making film for more than just the ‘writing of movement’ within the frame. A choreographer can organize any type of movement- sequence in film, actions, pedestrian movement, action-sequences, explosions, car pursuits and more. They could function as a dramaturge for the dancefilm, a test-viewer, someone who pre-views if the image really says what it should say. Choreographers who have a feeling for film should be able to use their knowledge on filmmaking, including other film genres besides the dancefilm. And, if choreographers can take on the role of cinematographers in other film genres, these films will be cinematic through its choreographic trades. Therefore these films can also be studied as if dancefilms, within a screendance context. Expanding the field of screendance even further and thereby challenging our established notions of choreography and dance yet again.

65 CHAPTER 6 Conclusion

6.1. Results

This conclusion presents the most important findings of this thesis, and a reflection on the research process with suggestions for further research.

Screendance and Screenchoreography Dance has played a role in film throughout the years. Already in the very first experiments of film it became clear that movement is the element that makes them compatible. In the early years of cinema, filmmakers used dance as a tool to emphasize the possibility to show movement on film, the moving image. During the time of avant-garde cinema however, it was mainly artist who where initially involved in dance, that conducted screendance experiments. Screendance is a hybrid art form that has come forth out of an interplay between dance and film. Therefore, it is discussed in discourse on film and image, intermediality, and dance and the body, but mainly in the two latter discourses, because critics predominantly see screendance as an invention coming from the dance world. A lack of sufficient theory on screendance both contributes to and causes the fact that screendance has little to no discourse of its own. Furthermore, there is no concrete definition of screendance. And there is also no agreement on the various subcategories and genres of screendance and what they entail. However, for this thesis the term screenchoreography has been used to refer to practices of screendance in which the movement is created through a collaboration between choreography and cinematography. It is a term used in festivals to define works in which the work is made from start to end by both filmmaker and choreographer. Whereas other screendance genres favour dance over film. Screenchoreography stresses the term ‘choreography’ instead of dance, which allows us to define more work as if it is screendance. Screenchoreography includes the choreographing of dancers as well as objects, like in stop motion films, or shapes in animations. It can also include the choreographing of the camera and even the choreographing of the use of cinematic elements and the editing-process.

Expanding the boundaries of choreography in screenchoreography In screenchoreography any movement is possible, made by anything and in every way. The cinematography increases the movement vocabulary for dance on screen. In screenchoreography anybody or anything can be the subject that moves within the frame. Animals and objects can both be choreographed on the screen with camera movement and through the cut. The subject body could also be that of the camera. The extended movement vocabulary and the non-human bodies are what challenge our perception as a viewer because they do not collide with the existing parameters of dance. That is why it is interesting for choreographers to experiment with screenchoreography to move across those boundaries.

66 In screenchoreography the choreographer is not only choreographing the movement of the subjects in the frame, but the camera as well. The movement of the camera influences the movement in the frame. It can emphasize, alienate or abrogate that movement. The framing of the movement has initiated new type of choreographies. The close up introduced a new type of screenchoreography called micro-choreography. Movements or gestures that would normally not be visible, or be acknowledged as choreographed dance movement. This way the perception of the viewer is again challenged because the expressive charge of the movement is distorted. The camera can also offer new perspectives on the movement and the space. The camera is able to film the space from within, giving the viewer a view of the choreography from the inside. The movement of the camera can increase the effect of immersion on the viewer. This can make up for the lack of liveness and the 2d of screendance. However with the possibility of 3D, an illusion of 3D can be made in which the movement comes into the kine-sphere of the viewer. Causing an even greater immersion. This way the screenchoreography can also increase the kinaesthetic experience of the viewer. The space in screenchoreography offers possibilities because it is not restricted and its relation to time is different. Any type of space can be used for screendance. In the montage subject can move across several spaces in a short time-span. The theatre the viewer can only see a frontal view, whereas film can offer various perspectives. The downside is that each viewer gets to see the exact same choreography, the director’s version. The space in film can also create an illusion of depth. And as mentioned before 3D effects can help solve the lack of liveness, through movement that comes toward the audience. The perception of the viewer is challenged because the space appears different on the screen, as well as its relation to movement. Therefore film space challenges the existing parameters of dance. Furthermore, the imagination of the viewer can be triggered to fill in the missing pieces of the choreography when the subjects move out of the frame. Film time is equally not restricted to the limits of real time. The space-time relation is distorted in film, therefore film time can be manipulated in many ways. Time tricks are used to speed up movement or slow it down. With these manipulations the expressive charge of the movement can be transformed. This is a similar effect as the micro and gesture choreographies. The montage is the specific order of images in time to create movement on the screen. Arranging the shots in the right order can create unison in the images. The right order can compliment the movement and convey the concept or narrative of the film. Stops in time can make non-movements significant and trigger the imagination of the spectator. Similar to film space, the film time opens possibilities for choreographic practices, because the movement is not limited by the boundaries of time in theatrical dance. The sound in a screenchoreography influences the expressive charge of the movement. Similar to the camera movement, it can either compliment or alienate the movement. Many of these screenchoreography pieces only have a soundtrack. However, additional sounds can compliment the movement and increase their expressive charge. Important parts in the film can be highlighted with vivid sections in the soundtrack. A rhythmical soundtrack can be the fundament on which the choreography is build. It can provide a rhythm for the movement and the edit. The sound can create

67 movement on it’s own. Even when there is no movement visible in the frame, the sound can suggest movement. Therefore, sound produced by a source outside the picture can trigger the imagination of the viewer. Sound can distort the perception of the viewer and it can help create a physical reaction, or kinaesthetic experience. The movement in a screenchoreography is produced by both cinematography and choreography. The combination of all these elements creates the final product, the choreography on the screen. In fact, it is in the edit suite that the final choreography is made, because this is where all the frames are put in order to create movement. Therefore it is necessary to include all movement and all cinematic elements in the shooting script and storyboard. Thus each element that mediates movement needs to be choreographed.

Cinematic principles in theatrical dance Cinematic elements have also found their way into choreographic practices outside the screendance world. Dance practitioners have experimented with various cinematic elements. The manipulation of time and the principle of montage led to fragmentation of the work. Choreographers have used these principles to manipulate movement to the point that they are out of context, or given new meaning. Consequently they try to distort the viewer’s perception, and to challenge their notions of choreography and dance.

Expanding conceptual boundaries of choreography and dance Dance on screen does not need to look like theatrical dance because it is an art form on its own. Because the dance is on the screen, it is not restricted to the parameters of theatrical dance and therefore it does not need to look like what we know as dance. Focussing on the choreographic quality in screenchoreography work gives choreographers and filmmakers alike the opportunity to move across the boundaries of dance. Which in turn allows screenchoreography to rise to its full potential. Thus, we should not limit screenchoreography to the parameters of dance or film, but acknowledge it as an art form of its own. Such a notion of screenchoreography allows it to remain open at the level of structure, meaning and materialisation. This way more work can be placed within a screendance context. This notion can also imply a new framework and theory for screendance, which can initiate a positive feedback loop. Therefore Karen Pearlman suggests that editors and choreographers can borrow principles and methods for writing movement from each other. ‘Choreography editing’ can create more cinematic films, because it asks for an abstract approach. Pearlman suggest that this abstract approach, with a focus on writing movement, can also shape emotions ass well as the story. Because choreographic tools are not just useful to shape visible movement, like in (pure dance) dance film, but for cinematically organizing movement as well. Choreography as a process and a profession can be used in making films for more than just the writing of movement within the frame. A choreographer can organize any type of movement-

68 sequence in films; actions, pedestrian movement, action-sequences, explosions, car pursuits and more. They could function as a dramaturge for the dancefilm, a test-viewer, someone who pre-views if the image really says what it should say. Choreographers who have a feeling for film should be able to use their knowledge on filmmaking, including other film genres besides the dancefilm. And, if choreographers can take on the role of cinematographers in other film genres, these films will be cinematic through its choreographic trades. Therefore these films can also be studied as if dancefilms, within a screendance context. Expanding the field of screendance even further and thereby challenging our established notions of choreography and dance, yet again.

6.2. Reflection and extended research

In reflecting on the research process and thesis, I am very positive that the goals of this thesis have been met. The information gained by this research can be used in future research on screendance and screenchoreography, as well as for research on contemporary choreography and dance. It was not always easy to select useful information. Mainly because there was not sufficient theory in the field of screendance regarding this point of view. Therefore, I expand my research to the dance and film field. This made it difficult to filter the information. This thesis only gives suggestions that might be useful for choreographers and al those otherwise active in the field of screenchoreography or screendance. However, these suggestions need to be thoroughly tested in practice. Furthermore, this thesis has only discussed each perspective separately and has not thoroughly compared screenchoreography examples or looked into how the perspectives affect each other. This could generate additional valuable information for screenchoreography discourse and practice. It would be possible to extend this research to the entire field of screendance. For this information can also be useful in other screendance practices. Working from a perspective of movement and choreography instead of dance might also be fruitful in hyperdance practices. Even if these practices focus on interactivity and the roll of the spectator in the work. Cinematic principles can also be used in these screening sites to distort the perception of the spectator or cause a kinaesthetic reaction. Choreographers can conduct experiments to see how working from a movement or choreography point of view, rather than dance, has a different outcome on the kinaesthetic reaction of spectators. Moreover, no extended research has been done on the spectator’s point of view. To verify if the suggested principles really challenge the spectator’s perception, extended research is needed. No spectators have been interviewed or questioned about their experiences with screenchoreography. They have not been asked about their notions of dance and choreography, or about their expectations of screenchoreography work. What do they qualify as a screenchoreography? Taking the spectator as a research perspective can generate different insights on screenchoreography. Positioning the spectator in screenchoreography can bring up questions about perception, the

69 embodiment of the perception, immersion, feeling into and kinaesthetic experience. Lastly, further research needs to be done on the choreography in cinematic films, to establish how choreographic elements are manifested in those films. Other non- screendance films need to be analysed to discover possible traces of choreography. It is still unclear whether or not choreographers could also contribute something to other cinematic films with their skills to organize movement. It would be interesting to see how choreographers could be dramaturges for film or perhaps give their assistance to the editors. However, these ideas also need more critical consideration and further research before they can be put to practice.

70 7. Bibliography

Bench, Harmony. “Hyperdance: Dance Onscreen, Dance Online: Or, What Difference Does the Medium Make?”. In: Proceedings ADF (American Dance Festival) Screendance State of the Art 1, 2006, 6–9 July, Durham, NC: Duke University, p.89-93.

Bleeker, Maaike. Visuality in the Theatre: The Locus of Looking. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillian, 2008.

Butterworth, Jo. Wildschut, Liesbeth. “General introduction: studying contemporary choreography.” Contemporary Choreography: A Critical Reader. Butterworth, Jo. Wildschut, Liesbeth. (ed.) Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. P. 1-3.

Brannigan, Erin. “Micro-choreographies: the close-up in dancefilm”. In: International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, Volume 5 Numbers 2&3.© Intellect Ltd 2009. Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/padm.5.2&3.121/1

Brannigan, Erin. Dancefilm: Choreography and the moving image. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Cvejić, Bojana. “Notes on Cinematic Procedures in Contemporary Choreography.” In: Frakcija Performing Arts Journal, 2009. P. 51-59.

Deren, Maya. “Cinematography: The Creative Use of Reality”. In: The Avant-Garde Film: A Reader of Theory and Criticism, (ed.) P. Adams Sitney. New York: Anthology Film Archives, 1978. P. 60-73.

Dodds, Sherril. Dance on Screen: Genres and Media from Hollywood to Experimental Art.(2001) Eastbourne: Antony Rowe Ltd, tweede druk, 2004.

Kattenbelt, Chiel. Theater en Film, in het perspectief van de vergelijking. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, 2006.

Kattenbelt, Chiel. “De rol van technologie in de kunst van de performer.” In: Theater & Technologie. Havens, Henk. Kattenbelt, Chiel. Ruijter, Eric de. Vuyk, Kees. (ed.). Amsterdam: Theater Instituut Nederland, 2007. P.12-31.

Kappenberg, Claudia. “Does screendance need to look like dance?” In: International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, Volume 5 Numbers 2&3. © Intellect Ltd 2009. Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/padm.5.2&3.89/1.

Kovgan, Alla. “Choreography: At the Crossroads of Cinema and Dance” In: Proceedings ADF (American Dance Festival) Screendance State of the Art 1, 2006, 6–9 July, Durham, NC: Duke University, P. 47-50.

Lepecki, Andre. Exhausting Dance: Performance and the Politics of Movement. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Lockyer, Bob. “A new space for dancing.” In: Envisioning Dance on film and video. Mitoma, Judy. (ed.) New York and London: Routledge, 2002. P.156-162.

71 Lycouris, Sophia. “Choreographic Environments: New technologies and movement-related artistic work.” In: Contemporary Choreography: A Critical Reader. Butterworth, Jo. Wildschut, Liesbeth. (ed.) Abingdon: Routledge, 2009, P. 346-361.

Lyotard, Jean-François. “Acinema.” In: Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A film Theory Reader. Rosen, Philip. (ed.) New York: Columbia University Press, 1986 p. 349-359.

Mitoma, Judy. “Introduction.” In: Envisioning Dance on film and video. (ed.) Mitoma, Judy. New York and London: Routledge, 2002. xxxi

Otake, Eiko.”A Dancer behind the lens.” In: Envisioning Dance on film and video. Mitoma, Judy. (ed.) New York and London: Routledge, 2002. P. 82-88.

Preston, Hilary. “Choreographing the frame: a critical investigation into how dance for the camera extends the conceptual and artistic boundaries of dance”. In: Research in Dance Education. Vol.7, No. 1, April 2006. P. 75-87.

Pearlman, Karen. “Editing as a Form of Choreography”. In: Proceedings ADF (American Dance Festival) Screendance State of the Art 1, 2006, 6–9 July, Durham, NC: Duke University. P. 52-56.

Pearson, E. Roberta. Simpson, Phillip. (ed.) Critical Dictionary of Film and Television Theory. London: Routledge, 2001.

Preston Dunlop, Valerie. Dansen nader bekeken: handboek voor het maken en bespreken van choreografieën. Amsterdam: LCA, 1998.

Rosenberg, D. “Proposing a theory of screendance”. In: Proceedings ADF (American Dance Festival) Screendance State of the Art 1, 2006, 6–9 July, Durham, NC: Duke University. P. 12-17.

Rosiny, Claudia. “Zeichen des Raumes im Videotanz.” In: Grenzgänge: Das Theater und die anderen Künste. Brandstetter, Gabriele. Finter, Helga. Wessendorf, Markus. (ed.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1998. P.261-272.

Rosiny, Claudia. Videotanz: Panorama einer intermedialen Kunstform. Zürich: Chronos verlag, 1999.

Rosiny, Claudia. “Videodance”. In: Videodança magazine 2007. Dança Em Foco. Brazil, 2007. P.70-81.

Walton, Judith. “Still moving still.” In: Dance Dialogues: Conversations across cultures, artforms and practices. 2006. P. 1-8.

Ward, Peter. Picture Composition for Film and Video. (1996) Oxford: Focal Press, second edition 2003.

Weseman, Arnd. “Was ist eigentlich Tanzfilm?”. In: Das Jarhbuch von ballettanz 2005. Nr. 55993. P. 15-22.

Wildschut, Liesbeth. “Live. De intrede van de video in de danskunst.” In: Theater & Technologie. Havens, Henk. Kattenbelt, Chiel. Ruijter, Eric de. Vuyk, Kees. (ed.). Amsterdam: Theater Instituut Nederland, 2007. P.34-43.

72 Websites Smith, S.E. 2011. “What is Choreography?” Wise GEEK. June 30, 2011. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-choreography.htm

Hinton, David. “Part 09 Birds”. Podcast audio-clip podcast of: David Hinton's talk at Dance for Camera Nights, Brighton. May 12, 2011. http://www.southeastdance.org.uk/part09birds.mp3

Annotations Hinton, David. “Lecture on videodance”. Personal annotations made at the Point Taken voorlichtingsdag 2. Mediafonds: Amsterdam, April 12 2011.

73 8. Filmography

7 tonnes 2. FR, 2004. Director: Nicolas Deveaux.

12Sketches: on the Impossibility of Being Still. UK, 2010. Director: Magali Charrier. Choreography: Magali Charrier & Selina Papoutseli.

Alt I Alt / All in All. N, 2004. Director: Torbjørn Skårild.

Amelia. CA, 2002. Director: Edouard Lock. Choreography: Eduoard Lock.

A study in Choreography for the Camera. US, 1944. Director: Maya Deren. Choreography: Maya Deren.

Birds. UK, 2000. Director: David Hinton. Choreography: Yolande Snaith.

Body of War. UK, 2010. Director: Isabel Rocamora.

Burlesque. US, 2010. Director: Steven Antin. Choreography: Joey Pizzi, Denise Faye.

Cabaret. US, 1972. Director: Bob Fosse. Choreography: Bob Fosse.

Cloverfield. US, 2008. Director: Matt Reeves.

Dirty Dancing. US, 1987. Director: Emile Ardolino. Choreography: Kenny Ortega.

Intolerance US, 1916. Director: D.W. Griffith. Choreography: Ruth St. Denis.

Fame. US, 1980. Director: Alan Parker. Choreography: Louis Falco.

Fl-Air. BE/NL, 2010. Director: Laura Vanborm. Choreography: Laura Vanborm.

Free Fall. FR, 2010. Director: Julie Gautier & Guillaume Nery.

Fresh - A Spaghetti and Fried Chicken Western. UK, 2008. Director: Robert Hylton. Choreography: Robert Hylton.

Fugue for Four Cameras (1937) Director: Antony Tudor. Choreography: Antony Tudor.

Hannah. UK, 2009. Director: Sérgio Cruz .

HOOP. CA, 2010. Director: Marites Carino. Choreography: Rebecca Halss.

Horseplay. NL, 2010. Director: Ruth Meyer. Choreography: Michael Schumacher, Ederson Xavier.

Hyperscape. NL, 2010. Director: Wilko Bello. Choreography: Marco Gerris.

Kung-Fu Hustle. CN, 2004. Director: Stephen Chow.

Paganini for Face. CDN, 2007.Director: Ashenzil. Choreography: Ashenzil.

74

Pito. NZ, 2008. Director: Mark Summerville. Choreography: Taiaroa Royal, Taane Mete.

Retrograde. IS, 2010 Director: Julianna L. Steingrimsdottir. Choreography: Asgeir Helgi Magnusson, Inga Maren Runarsdottir.

Saturday Night Fever. US, 1977. Director: John Badham. Choreography: Lester Wilson.

Singin’ in the Rain. US ,1952. Director: Gene Kelly. Choreography: Gene Kelly.

Slow Dance. CA, 2010. Director: Joe Cobden. Choreography: Joe Cobden.

So You Think You Can Dance. NL, 2011. Creaters: Simon Fuller, Nigel Lythgoe. Director: Remko Geursen.

Step Up 3d. US, 2010. Director: Jon M. Chu. Choreography: Hi-Hat, Dave Scott, Jamal Sims.

Tachometer. DE, 2008 Director: Philip Bussmann. Choreography: Sahra Huby.

Val. NL, 2010. Director: Joris Hoebe. Choreography: Boukje Schweigman.

Vertiges. CA, 2009 Director: Stéphanie Decourteille. Choreography: Stéphanie Decourteille.

Weights of Sorrow. ZW, 2009 Director: Ninja Miori. Choreography: Cyntia Botello.

75 9. List of performances

50/50. 2004. Mette Ingvartsen.

Artifact. 1984. William Forsythe.

For Faces. 2010. Antonia Baehr.

It’s in the Air. 2008. Mette Ingvartsen.

Le sacre du Printemps. 2009. Xavier le Roy.

Live. 1979. Hans van Manen.

NVSBL. 2006. Eszter Salamon.

Rire/Laugh/Lachen. 2009. Antonia Baehr.

What a body you have, honey. 2001 Eszter Salamon.

While we were holding it together. 2006. Ivanna Müller.

Why we love action. 2007. Mette Ingvartsen.

76 10. Appendix

10.1. David Hinton lecture p.1

“Lecture on videodance” by David Hinton at Point Taken voorlichtingsdag Mediafonds: Amsterdam, April 12 2011.

DEEL 1 , 12.30-14.00 uur

Begin samenwerking film en dans

Eerste films hadden juist dansers als subject Maken / structureren van actie op film(action)

v.b.1 Louie Fuller, Lumiere Brothers etc. (serpentine dance )

In de oude films mochten ze niet buiten het frame vallen dus minimale bewegingsruimte. Ze moeten binnen het kader blijven. (dat is wanneer de camera een standpunt aanhoudt)

Zodra danser in film zit is het 2d, in het ‘frame’  3d, oftewel liveness is weg. De taal van van cinema breekt de performance af. Terwijl het juist om de manier van performen dat is waar het om gaat in een performance. Bij film is het juist de edit en het camerawerk, het ritme.

v.b. 2 Fred Astaire:

Camera volgt dans, staat in dienst van dans (dus soort van stage-recording) 1 take shot, geen edit. (werkt dus alleen wanneer de dansers beiden ‘mooi’ in het frame blijven.Niet een persoon omhoog en de ander omlaag, camera kan niet beiden volgen)

v.b 3 Busby Burkely:

Choreslines, geometische vormen, caleidoscoop beeld, veel overal shots, bird-view. Dynamisch, danser beweging ook van achter naar voor, dus naar de camera toe bewegen. Wat beter werkt voor camera. Bij stage is het juist meer de diagonale beweging die goed werkt. (toeschouwer is dan meer betrokken, gaat met de beweging mee)

Danser meer in dienst van de film, de shots. Hij gebruikt juist close-ups, topshots, effects, montage, etc.

Bij de samenwerking van choreograaf en regisseur dus belangrijk kijken wie meer voortouw neemt, of liever welk medium geeft het ritme aan.

v.b. 4 Singin’ in the rain – (Gene Kelly danser plus filmmaker)

Waarom werkt dit goed? Goeie samenwerking film en dans. Beiden doen ‘evenveel’. Het werkt omdat het vrij simpel is. De ruimte wordt goed gebruikt. De camerabeweging speelt in op de gebeurtenis van de dans. (Bijv. Een close-up, of de danser beweegt juist weer naar de camera toe) Alles is hier heel erg op de muziek gedanst en ge-edit. De emotie wordt zowel door de performance als door shot/camera benadrukt.

Plus hier ook veel meer een narrative. De performance/de reis wordt gemaakt door de dans en de camera/cut.

77 Soort samenwerking/soort dans-film: p.2

1. Stage-adaption, herinterpretatie van een bestaande performance

2. screenchoreography – dance especially created for the camera

3. docu-choreography, dus bijv. Vliegende vogels zo editen dat het choreografie wordt

vb 5 DV8 - Dead dreams of monochrome men (eerste film die hij heeft gemaakt met dv8)

Licht wordt net als op podium ingezet om de kijker te leiden. Waar moet hij/zij naar kijken.

Juist iets maken wat alleen spreekt door actie-beweging. Geen tekst bijv. Je ziet bijv. In de film de uitputting niet letterlijk zoals op podium. Die fysieke liveness van de lichamen zie je niet terug in film omdat 2d is en de tijd gemanipuleerd wordt. Die uitputting werkt op de emotionele lading van de performance (physical theatre). Op film valt dat dan weg. Je kunt dat niet acteren…

Wat belangrijk is dat je van elkaar weet wat je partner belangrijk vind in zijn/haar werk.

Vb 6 dv8 strange fish

De film moet ook passen bij de stijl van de performers. Dus hier de physicality niet de vorm.

Bij cunninham bijv moeilijk, hij maakt performance juist dat je kunt kiezen als kijker, waar je naar wilt kijken. Bij film kan dat niet. Je hebt of detail, of totaal. Film is meer liniair (timing) en performance in theatrical space niet. Alles kan tegelijk gebeuren. Als regisseur moet je steeds voor de kijker beslissen hoe die ernaar moet kijken.

Vb 7 dv8 strange fish

De dansers hebben al maanden kunnen repeteren. Ze hebben het geperfectioneerd, het zit in hun lijven-hoofden. Dat maakt het makkelijker voor de filmmaker.

-Werkt niet zo goed als je de dansers bijvoorbeeld dingen laat doen die ze niet goed kunnen. (zoals acteren) Houdt met je script rekening daarmee. De dans/dansers hoeft niet in dienst te staan van de film.

Sound:

-Bijv. Met de stenen, hoe hebben ze dat gechoreografeerd? Geluid lijkt bij de choreografie te passen. Dus geluid in de film past bij de beweging, komt van de beweging zelf(en interactie met objecten) niet postproduction. Hij probeert met geluid ook fysieke reactie over te brengen bij kijker. Ook om soort wereld die op zichzelf staat te creëren. Beweging juist interactie met ruimte (dus wissel, beweeg met ruimtes), niet de beweging plaatsen in een ruimte.

-tijdspanne problematisch? Kun je verhaal vertellen in 8 min? Infilm heb je niet zo veel tijdnodig, de tijd voelt anders,1 min op podium voelt als 10 min in film bij wijze van.

Vb 8

Een nieuwe taal bedenken van choreografie voor camera , cine-choreografie. Tv is ook anders dan film/big screen, denk erover na waar je film wordt gescreend.

78 Vb 9 Touched p.3

Beweging van de camera verstrekt de beweging van de dansers. Dezelfde stijl gebruikt, dus versterkt het shot en de emotie die e over willen dragen. Als de camera beweegt voel je je meer betrokken als kijker.

Gebruiken van choreografische concepten tijdens het editen en concepten van cinematografie en decoupage/editen bij de choreografie voor de camera. Mix van choreografie en cinematografie. Tijd, ruimte, body (danser en cam)

Proces van film maken, hoe werkt het, wie maakt de beslissingen. Beste is om meteen af te spreken wat de beeldtaal wordt. Dus bijvoorbeeld voor dit voorbeeld is dat ze van te voren hebben afgesproken dat alles in close wordt gefilmd. Dus ook goed scenario en storyboard maken.

DEEL 2, 14.30-15.45 uur

Categorie 3, docu-choreo

Vb 9min. Birds

Bestaande beelden gebruiken voor een nieuw werk. Dus van beelden die eigenlijk niet choreografie zijn een choreo maken.

Bijvoorbeeld ook stopmotion van objecten etc. Dus andere manieren van choreografie dan met lichamen.

Birds is wel gedaan met een choreograaf naast de editor. Zodat er een betere edit-choreo ontstaan. Helaas werkte dit niet. Volgens hem de verkeerde choreograaf uitgezocht, had een andere gedachtenlijn. Hij had juist iemand nodig die goed was in choreograferen op muziek, juist heel ritmisch.

David Hinton: “Filmmaking is Choreography” Niet elke filmmaker denkt zo. Plus er zijn ook choreografen die zich hier niet in kunnen vinden en niet in filmtaal kunnen denken.

Film om de vorm en niet het narratief. Dus geen tekst, verhaal maar beeld. Stiekem kwam er toch een beetje verhaal in, de vogels krijgen toch persoonlijkheden, emoties.

Heel veel keuzes bij montage van bestaand materiaal. Kies je voor tijd, richting in beweging, ritme, ruimte, continuïteit, etc. Hier is het een geografische reis geworden, dus de bewegingsdialogen tussen de vogels kloppen qua ruimte. De film bouwt ook op qua tempo en massa, als in van close en 1– 2 vogels naar meer wide-angles en meer vogels.

Bij deze film veel gedoe met de soundtrack (vooral vogelgeluiden). De soundtrack die er nu onder zit is last minute gemaakt omdat de film anders niet op tv kwam. De eerste compositie werkte niet omdat het niet paste bij zijn idee van beeld-edit. Deze soundtrack legde te veel restricties op de edit. Hij heeft nu wiskundig in elkaar gezet op ritme van eerste soundtrack. (lengte van shots, cuts etc.) Nu is dat dus niet meer van pas.

79 Audio /geluid/muziek bepaald helemaal hoe je het beeld ziet/beleefd. p.4

De beelden beïnvloeden niet zo zeer welk gevoel je hebt bij die bepaalde soundtrack. Wel andersom, wat je voelt bij de beelden verandert door een bepaalde soundtrack.

Dus de edit is het maken van de film, de choreografie ontstaat door de cinematografie.

Vraag-antwoord:

Hoe voel je snelheid van danser als kijker?  de camera ook snel bewegen. Bijv snelle pan/ track.

Vaak ook expres objecten voor de camera zodat er diepte in het beeld ontstaat.

Film gebaseerd op poetry?

Nora, verteld het verhaal van een afrikaanse danseres (cinedans 2011 programma +dioraphte winner)

Deze film/bewegingen is gebaseerd op een waargebeurd geschreven verhaal/gedicht.

Hierbij goed nadenken over hoe laten we die lange perioden van tijd zien in zon kort tijdsbestek? Uiteindelijk helemaal geen woorden gebruikt, maar juist als stomme film, tussenbumpers met tekst.

Splitscreen  in een film en installatiewerk thierry de Mey

Slowmotion -> slow dance Leni Riefenstahl _olympic (dive section)

Philippe Decoufle – abakadabra, spelen met idee van frame

80 10.2. DVD

This dvd contains 30seconds fragments of the twenty screenchoreography examples discussed in this thesis. By means of copyright, this dvd is for educational purpuses only and may not be copied or distributed otherwise.

81