Reading Nancy Becker's conversation with Charles Atlas truly opened my eyes to the art behind film-making. Atlas emphasized the importance of detailed when stating, "A subliminal or subconscious effect on the work is that details become important, whether you decide you're going to control them or not"(35). The film-makers pay such close attention to things that are so small, yet make a big difference in the film. I also learned that he doesn't just start shooting. Instead, he is prepared going into the shoot, similar to how we had to storyboard our assignments. That way, it's much less expensive and it takes less time editing as well. Filming dance also takes effort from the dancers, as Atlas reveals that they cannot use all of their energy in one shoot, since they have to use their energy in the next takes. Overall, the film-makers, most of the time, don't use their first takes.
I found it interesting that Charles Atlas likes to move the cameras while he's filming, stating that it gives the work "a freer, faster kind of feeling"(134). I feel that just having the camera on the tripod is limited, and moving the camera is better.
Another interesting thing I found is that he experiments through other people's works, since it's too expensive to experiment on your own. So he looks at other people's works, and sees what worked and what didn't, which I thought was a very smart thing to do. Overall, Becker does an excellent job during the interview with Charles Atlas,and Atlas breaks down the details behind filming Cunningham dance.
This article highlighted a very common exception of video medium, which we implicitly know at the back of our minds. I cannot think of any feature presentation where dance has been captured in totality covering every movement and gesture in a continuous time. If such piece was created, it would definitely look cumbersome and an artistic mess. Though the article pointed out that movements make dancers and not the other way around, it doesn’t seem very plausible for famous choreographers and dancers who we see on screen, which have their camera topography set in advance, to deduce maximum meaning and/or effect from their movements.
In Nancy Becker’s Filming Cunningham dance: A conversation with Charles Atlas, it’s interesting that Charles Atlas states how important choreographers are in media when an article we read before was completely opposite of what Atlas said. In my opinion, I agree with Atlas’s statement of how crucial the roles of choreographers are in media especially in film/video that contains dances. It is also interesting how free and open filming is. What I mean by that is there are not a lot of “rules” or “restrictions” what creating a video. This can be applied to the “partnership” between dancers and the choreographers with their cameras. One could either film the dancers in a long take or in multiple takes. But they have to work together in order to create a masterpiece. One thing that I got from this interview that I found very personal to me is the fact that everyone has a different style; everyone is unique in their own way. People get their own “style” from other works and influences; they do not develop their own “style” out of the blue. They are influenced and affected by the things that happen in their lives.
i feel that the statement that sums up this article is "...the medium of television could clearly dominate, rather than coexist with, the choreography and other elements of a performance" (35). It seemed that Charles Atlas and Merce Cunninghams collaboration was focused on trying to learn each others medium and language in order to effectivley communicate each others style. In other words, when taking the dance art and translating it to television, there must be some major changes in technique and form within the dancer in order for the dance to have similar content. Instead of just filming the dancer with the camera in a single position (imitating and replicating an audience member), both dance and film language must converge to create a new form. Many of the films that are described, seem to focus on some technique that Atlas and Cunningham are trying to explore within the new dance film medium.
In "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation With Charles Atlas," Nancy F. Becker presents a contrasting view of dance and film to last week's article by Sidney Peterson and Marian Van Tuyl. Peterson and Van Tuyl argued that dance performances could not effectively be captured on film or video. Becker's interview with Atlas proposes that it indeed can, it just takes a lot of preparation and time. Atlas noted the importance of the relationship between a filmmaker and the coreographer in order to make an effective film. Atlas said that "you definitely see a lot more when you watch things on video than you are aware of noticing on the stage" (133). This goes against what Peterson and Van Tuyl said in their article, which shows how subjective film media is. Atlas said that the fluidity of dance could be maintained on film by using special camera techniques such as panning rather than zooming and the use of the Steadicam and a dolly. He also noted that some of the dance films he worked on with Cunningham featured long continuous takes, which also displays fluidity and maintains rhythm.
In Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas is an article regarding a specific choreographer, Merce Cunningham, but reveals much about the nature of dance films in general. The interviewee, Charles Atlas, speaks about collaborating with Cunningham. He says how both film and dance do not necessarily combine the way they make it combine. Meaning film could simply record from a distance the dance, but has the potential to do so much more than a stage performance. Instead, close-ups and other angles are shot, bringing the potential of film to its maximum. I think that this is a very good point. That when dances are shot, they can be more than recorded: they can be enhanced. However, this should only be done if the filmmakers are skilled. I have seen some films or TV shows in which the dance itself is obstructed by the film. Meaning, at certain points the dance should be seen from afar, such as in the Lightfoot Parade seen in class, but unskilled filmmakers often are busy with a close-up at these moments, so that the dance is in fact impeded upon rather than enhanced. Atlas also discusses having to make changes in the dance for the dancers, and trying to allow them to dance for extended periods rather than short bursts. The reality is, however, that long shots are not ideal, as the camera angle should change, and that changes will have to be made in the dance. As he also mentions, it is possible to enhance the motion of a dance by placing the camera in locations in which it seems to take no room impeding the dancers. Of course the spaciousness is an illusion, but if the dancers are to participate in film choreography, sacrifices must be made. Film is a very different medium. I thought it interesting that sound was mentioned the way it was, in that Atlas thought it such necessary element. Atlas spoke of foley sound effects belonging there simply because they exist in a real dance. It sounded naïve and outdated, but in a way makes much sense. It roots the audience to the reality of dancing rather than the enhanced thing it becomes through film.
After reading "A Conversation With Charles Atlas", this interview brought more clarity to my understanding of film making. Throughout Nancy's interview with John Cage, I found myself more interested in learning more about the techniques used and his collaboration with Merce Cunningham. Interestingly, in the interview, John cage emphasized on how Merce's successfully made dancing look spacious in a small area in films, such that "you don't neccessarily feel that the camera is confining the dancers" (133). Which is important when producers are on a budget and have limited resources and space. In addition, Cage also asserts that many believe that the sound of dancing goes along with the music, when in fact, "the music accompanies it, but it's not the only thing you're aware of aurually when you watch a dance" (134), which is true, because often times music can be a bit distracting and causes the audience to lose focus on the choreography.
In the article, "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation With Charles Atlas", they discuss the mediums of dance and film and how film can dominate the movement of dance. I disagree because film and dance can coexist, the only difference is that the perspective changes. Whether it be the camera angle or speed that changes in the film, the movement of dance remains constant. In fact, I feel as though, film only enhances the dynamics and emotion of dance. When watching William Forsynthe's video, the close-ups of the dancers only enhanced their movement. Sometimes during a dance performance, in order to maintain the rhythm, they move quite quickly and drastically. Film or the video medium can record these actions and then slow it down or be replayed and in that sense, it can give the audience a better perspective and understanding.
The reading “Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas” is mainly about the interview of Charles Atlas by Nancy Becker. Charles Atlas declares the importance of the relationship between Artists and choreographers in filming. A good director can catch up choreographers’ rhythm, and using perfect lighting and shooting skills to present dancers’ body; a good choreographer can comprehend the director easily, and use her dancing skills and body to present what director wants. I think this theory is right for every actors and filmmakers. Understand each other and understand the script is most important thing for filming. Every small detail can influence the whole dancing video. “A subconscious effect on the work is that detail become important, whether you decide you’re going to control them or not. ” An eye contact, a small action or a smile, all of these little details can change the feeling of the film. I think Charles Atlas presents us a perfect explanation of film making, not only for dancing film but for all filming, director and actors needs to catch up the main theme of the video, and use the skills and details to presents a better film.
In Nancy Becker's interview with Charles Atlas, I found it very interesting when she asked him about why they choose to mix in ambient sounds to their soundtracks. Charles Atlas responds saying that basically ambient sound is something that they never not mix in because it complements the music and dancing so well. He also brings up the fact that television shows always adds clapping sounds because "they think it would be funny if you saw someone put two hands together," and it just made me imagine television shows without the audience clapping sounds and laughter and how boring it really would be to watch. I also couldn't help but agree with Atlas when he said "he'd rather move the camera than zoom-in." Definitely there's a right time for everything and in his case of filming dancers, I definitely feel like leaving your camera on a tripod and zooming in and out just seems very boring and uninteresting. Moving the camera and being next to the dancers and feeling their emotions seems a bit more "right."
Nancy Becker conducts an interview with Charles Atlas in the article, "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation With Charles Atlas". I thought that Becker did a good job asking various questions that picks up interesting facts and what goes behind the scene of Atlas's and Merce's collaboration together. Atlas's response to Becker's question about the ambient sound. He explains how it is part of the dance so he never leaves it out. Afterwards, he brings up a very ironic point in which television, often times, leaves out "the sound of feet on the floor" because the viewers do not think it is weird while they do think it's weird if the the sound of claps are missing if there's someone doing a clapping motion with their hands. I wonder what exactly leads us, audience, to think this way in which we don't notice that the ambient sound of footsteps are missing. I also thought it was interesting when Atlas explains how dancers needs to pace themselves when performing in front of a camera. I never realized how dance is performed very differently from live performances. According to Atlas, the dancers needs to really pace themselves as they have to work with the camera-man, who usually do not have enough practice of the dance than the actual dancers have. It seems ironic in which these dancers need to have "enough energy" to control their pace (usually slower pace for the camera to be able to move with them). Usually, the more you move and exercise, the more energy you need. However, it is ironic in this case when Atlas explains how you need energy for slower paced movement. Nonetheless, this is understandable since dances seems to be easier when you're in smooth, fast motion of movement rather than slow but having detailed and small movements.
In contrast with last week’s “The Slowing Down of the Subject: A Medium for Choreographers,” this week’s interview with John Cage explains that video can really capture dance and provided several useful pointers to keep in mind. Dance and video are interdependent. The director has to be able, willing, and ready to change the choreography without altering the ideas of shape. For example, the interview mentioned “[designing] arm movements that can be altered without damaging the ideas of shape so that if it is necessary to make a change during the shooting it won’t be a whole other thing.” Another interesting point that Cage mentioned was how Merce exploited the depth by using the triangular floor space as seen by the camera’s “eye” to his advantage in designing his choreographies to look more spacious than it is so that it doesn’t feel like the camera is confining the dancers.
In “Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas,” Nancy Becker interviews filmmaker Charles Atlas about his collaborative works with choreographer Merce Cunningham. In her interview, Becker inquires about Atlas’ relationship with Cunningham and the techniques, strategies, and challenges associated with capturing choreographed dance on film. Atlas talks about integrating the rhythm of dancers to the rhythm of the camera, his use of ambient sound in dance, the adaptation dancers must undergo whilst adjusting to being filmed, his preferred camera movement techniques, and the differences between shooting for film and shooting for television. Becker's interview reveals the intricacy of capturing dance on film, and the many technical aspects considered in doing so. An interesting read.
Before I read the article Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas by Nancy Becker and attending lecture, I had not thought about films geared toward the topic of dance, or even the specific choreography for dance films.
The fact that Atlas was so detailed with his answers made me wonder about all the work that really goes into the filming of such a video. Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of this article is the fact that it brings up people's seemingly natural acceptance of a dance without its audio counterpart, but their unwilling absorption of an image of someone clapping without sound. These are little, subconscious things that I was not exceedingly aware of, but it being brought up like this made me think deeper about other things I might have overlooked about film or dance, such as line movement and small gestures made with the hands or feet.
I especially liked the part where Atlas said that he thought "that some choreographers will choreograph only for the camera, but [he doesn't] believe that any dancers will just dance for the camera" (137). For some reason, this brought me to the idea of all squares being rectangles, but not all rectangles being squares. It is a strange comparison, but it works for me.
In the article “Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas”, Nancy L. Becker interviews video filmmaker Charles Atlas about his collaborations with Merce Cunningham’s choreography and dance for video recordings. The interview reveals many interesting perspectives and opinions on the intermixing of video and dance. I found it of particular interest how both the choreographer made changes for the format but also how filming had a reverse effect on choreography on stage (ie. increased attention to detail/perspective). Atlas does a good job of describing the intricacies of how the collaborations of film and dance must compromise: dancers learning how to work in front of a camera, taking longer takes in consideration of the dancers, and developing joint rhythms between the motion of the cameras and the motion of the dance. In a broader sense, he discuses the ideas and challenges of collaboration between film, video, television, and performance arts.
I personally was excited about this reading because I realized that "Cunningham and Cage" from the song "La Vi Boheme" from the musical "Rent" were the two artists that were being mentioned in this reading. Anyways, I enjoyed reading about how Atlas and Cunningham were combining two different media (dance and film) into one, and that they understood that each was different, and therefore had a great partnership. Of course I would have liked to see all the pieces mentioned (I only found some online) so that I could know what they were talking about, but Atlas' descriptions of how they worked were good. I've enjoyed this reading and the lecture about using the body as its central instrument. I didn't realize how much more work putting dance on film was versus just being on the stage. For both the choreographer must be aware of what the audience sees, but for film you can also use different angle shots, different lighting, different sets, different spaces to get your story across, and you need more than a choreographer; you need a film professional. I really liked the part about using music versus the ambient noise. I used to think dance had to go to music, but after watching some examples, one can see that you focus on the movement and some actions seem stronger when you hear them.
Nancy F. Becker begins “Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas” by introducing her two subjects. The first thing I found interesting about the interview was Atlas’s statement that, “You definitely see a lot more when you watch things on video than you are aware of noticing on the stage” (133). It seems that it would make the planning of the video or film much more difficult because you have to be thinking about absolutely everything that is in the frame. This interview allowed us to get behind the scenes of choreographing and filming dance. As students in Vis70N we can relate somewhat because we have made a couple videos ourselves but because I am not choreographing, I value the discussion between Becker and Atlas. It has opened my eyes, so to speak. During lecture I found myself appreciating the dance videos more because I was aware of the complexity of making dance films. As we heard from Professor Trigilio, with this kind of film there is as much choreography of the camera as there is of the dance and Atlas reaffirms this: “The process of shooting is about getting the rhythm of the camera and the rhythm of the dancing right” (134).
I admire the the creativity and use of camera by Cunningham. Particularly, the discussion of film and video influencing his stage works where details, subliminal or subconscious, become very complex in the control and expression of the medium. I think this idea translates to forms of video other than dance where gestures and rhythmic detail, can become complex and provide additional narrative. Also, when these details are combined, they can produce works similar to what was shown at lecture last night that produce an aggregate image like the dancers in the Busby Berkley film.
This interview was interesting because it allowed me to see how dance is captured in film. The way dance is captured seems to be in between the artificial and genuine realms of filming. Although there are cuts and editing like adding ambient sounds after filming, the dancing itself is done in a way where it can be captured realistically on camera. Although the dancers have to use different techniques when dancing, the differences are more so about pacing rather than any other drastic changes. I found this article very interesting because prior to reading this I didn't know so much work went into filming dances. I thought that the films were usually done in one take, as if the performer were performing for the camera. Now that I know that this is not the case, and that dancers dance without music, it's very intriguing to think how this type of art is filmed without sacrificing certain elements of dance that make it what it is.
t’s interesting to see how the choreography is not in the center of production, but how the production/editing plans and choreography are equally evaluated before the shoot. Atlas explains the importance of space and protraction in dance films because it gives a more fluid shot of the dancer. Also, the moving camera instead of a zoom can place the viewer in the energy of the dance. The interview reveals how intricate editing can be because of the small details of sound and movement. Atlas explains how a small piece of ambient music can have a profound effect on screen when paired with the dance. I agree because the dance can be aggressive without sound, but with an ambient track, it can soften our view and give us a different interpretation of the dance. Also, Atlas explains the disruption of the dance and how they break it down. Recording a dance can be exhausting for the performer because the momentum is broken if the director continually stops the dance to move to a different angle.
It helped me to watch the videos to understand a bit what Atlas was talking about.
I found it rather interesting when Atlas was talking about the rhythm, he said that the shooting is about getting the rhythm of the camera and the rhythm of the dancing (p.134). And later on he says that the dances are made in silence and used to hearing the sound of dancing. I always thought that dancing was a way of expressing the music. But this is another way of seeing it, which I appreciate. When I took a look at some of the pieces, I could clearly see that he prefers to move the camera (p.135) rather than zoom think makes it more “floating” but adds also a bit of a “shakyness” which can be interpret as more authentic and real. Compared to last week’s reading about the The Slowing down of the subject: a medium for choreographers, by Peterson and van Tuyl this is actually “dances in films”, but none the less dance.
The article "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas" by Nancy F. Becker is contrasting with the article we read last week. Unlike last week's author, Becker believes that dance is able to be captured with film. For this to happen, it is important that the director and choreographer are on the same page and that they are willing to be flexible with their plan. Sometimes when filming a dance, it does not look as lively as it would in person, so movements must be changed and angles have to collaborate with the subject. One of Merce's greatest film achievements is the ability to angle the camera in so that the he makes the dance look very spacious and not confined by space. After seeing some dance clips from lecture last night, I believe that it is possible to capture dance, however, it is not easy. This article has made me aware of how much thought and preparation is given into filming dance. Each shot and cut have to match the choreography and already be planned out before shooting. Dancers have to be prepared to do multiple takes at times. Budget given are never are enough. It is a difficult thing to make a dance film, however, if one shows the same passion for dance and film intersection as Atlas, the result makes it all worthwhile.
This article is quite insightful on the techniques and methods used by Charles Atlas to film dance. I found it interesting when he said how his tastes in shooting dance changed over time; how before, he liked to used zooms and now, he likes to actually move the camera. The way a dance is shot close-up, like the videos Trigilio showed on Monday, makes the dance seem like such an abstract piece and really grabs the attention of the audience. We are indeed fortunate that Atlas has decided to share his expertise with the interviewer, and through him, us. It really made me appreciate the difficulty and planning involved with filming a dance.
The thing that attracts me most throughout the interview is Atlas's talks about the usage of moving camera. It actually recalls me some war movies I watched before. I believe it is just 10 years ago, the editors were still using the fast zoom-in, zoom-out and panning technique to construct the tension of war. However, looking at the movies in, especially, these 3 to 5 years, while the funds for a movie keep raising, the movie makers start installing rails in the jingles and trenchers to allow cameras move along the characters. Consequently, an audience is not only watching an intense soldier running, but running with them while feeling the same speed, breath and nervousness.
On the other hand, his collaborating with the choreographer reminds me the last reading "The Slowing Down of the Subject: A Medium for Choreographers". After reading the last reading, I thought a dance that is to be taped to be shown as a video should be completely different from a stage dance. However, from his words about how he works with the choreographer, my understanding has changed. It feel like that a stage dance can to transferred to a dance on video by changing some of the gestures(maybe the length of a step, the depth of a bow) when two of them still look very much alike.
I found this article to be particularly interesting, because it shows how it is in fact possible for performance and media to exist together in perfect harmony. Each form of art definitely has something to offer the other form, for example, in the way that once Cunningham began to make his films, he began to pay more attention to "little" gestures of performances and began incorporating these aspects into his choreography. I realized from the reading that it would be quite difficult to film and edit a choreographed dance, solely in terms of how long each take is. To film something for four or five minutes and then have to later find the parts where you wanted to edit and touch up certain things would be quite tedious and time consuming. But despite the complexities of the art form, and the financial restraints placed upon them, Atlas and Cunningham are able to produce great works of art.
I think the main implication of "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas," is that when a dance is filmed well, magic can happen. It shows us how the colloboration of film and dance creates a meaningful product greater than the sum of its parts, and becomes an artform all its own.
It is quite clear, however, that this colloboration is not easy. Both the dancers and filmmakers have to go out of their way to acheive success. Dancers used to completing a dance without interruption often have to repeat certain sections for the filmmaker, and maintain a consistently high-energy performance throughout multiple takes. The choreography of the dance is also influenced in a film, and certain gestures and movements may be emphasized in the work. The filmmaker's challenge is capturing the essence of a dance with what is debatably the most technically difficult medium out there. This is only compounded by the fact that film budgets are always too small.
Ultimately, as with any film, passion is required to make a dance film come to life. It is a labor of love, and requires dedication from everyone involved. Atlas puts it simply - "...we make the work to interest ourselves primarily."
The virtuoso’s authenticity in front of the camera, and the camera’s ability to “cinematically” frame the subject are simply supplements to the montage they create as an interdisciplinary art. In a way, these disciplines are independently limited but the purpose of their collaboration is to create a media that is besides the point of authenticity and cinematic techniques. As a collaborative, they are a highly technical combination. Atlas and Cunningham have created dance and film as an interdisciplinary art, in which dance and film work together in synchrony, both meticulously choreographed. The idea is deceptively simple: it is easy for the camera to consume the dancer through its cinematic techniques, and for the dancer to disregard the camera. The art strives for equilibrium. Atlas, in the article explains that the camera possesses the potential to enhance the dancer's virtuosity, to create depth and detail through the dancer's movements and the space s/he moves in. The dancer provides that potential through his/her talent. It is a highly successful combination; the only drawback is the fact that the dancer must be sensitive to the fact that his/her movements are deconstructed by the camera. The camera demands the dancer’s sensitivity to particular movements so those are successfully shot. This requires several takes, meaning the dancer must learn how to control his/her energy expenditure. That seems to be what limits dance and film/video—the fact that in order for dance to be a media, the movements must be deconstructed for the sake of framing so authenticity is questioned. But again, that is besides the purpose of the collaboration. The purpose is to exhibit dance through a different medium (the camera), and for the camera to intensely pay attention to detail highly choreographed, bringing this media to another stage.
Becker points out some interesting insight contracting with the article from last week.He believes that the physical sense and the rhythm of the dancer. Live performance can actually be capture with the film,even connect the audience and the dancer more directly.Through the shooting angles, length of the tape the director/ the audience are able to experience dancers ,gesture,movement without changing the idea of the shape.He believes that"anyone who works in the film and video with dance gets more involved with details" I think it is very interesting to see how he mention Merce's film/video choreography and the design of its camera movement response to the idea of the stage art.The translation of the forms,gestures,movement,and other details in the video art can be complex,but constructive.
I loved this piece because I got to see how a director makes his movie. I am fascinated with directors and why they did or did not do a specific shot. On page 134 I was jealous of Atlas because he said he knows what exact shot he wants and how he is going to cut the shot. I wish i could figure out how to see my film and the visions I have, in the ways he does. It was interesting to be able to see this insight and learn from a well known director of how he makes film.
While the previous essay "The Slowing Down of the Subject: A Medium for Choreographers" had said that there is a large separation between film and dance, this interview refutes this claim. Charles Atlas talks about his collaborative work with Merce Cunningham and from my understanding, he shows how film and dance can blend very well. Although filming does expose a lot more to the viewer than say a stage dance, it is for the better. For example, Atlas says that Merce is able to not only choreograph for video, but he can also add depth and make "dancing look spacious in a very small area" as a way of exploiting the elements a camera can add to choreography.
Another thing to point out is that dance and film are created in different ways. Dance is generally rehearsed and all done in one set while film is commonly taken in many short takes. This conflict however is explained by Atlas as he says that long takes are encouraged to let the dancers dance and keep their tempo and rhythm. In this way dance can be represented within film unlike what was said in the previous essay by Sidney Peterson and Marian Van Tuyl.
One quote in particular stood out to me, "Sometimes the film considerations precede the dance considerations and sometimes it's the other way around. People find it hard to believe that the choreography does not precede the decision about how to shoot it". This is what was mentioned in lecture last night... how the the two mediums (dance and video) work together to produce something that could not just be seen on stage. I also think its important that the piece is then becomes not just about the human physicality of the dance, but rather, through video, it incorporates a sense of time, scale and location. -Amy M
I feel that this article is related to the reading that we had last week. However, the difference is that despite the disadvantages of filming dance, Atlas and Cunnigham worked collaboratively to utilize the advantages of the two different mediums to create a new type of medium that effectively communicates with the audience. Instead of just pointing out the problems and the complications of capturing dance on film, I liked how Atlas described filming dance as "pacing yourself" for the camera.
I found it remarkable that the concerns expressed by David Antim as to the influence television has on video productions and the budgetary concerns of the artist manifest themselves in this interview between Charles Atlas and Nancy Becker. When asked “what are the factors in determining the length of a piece” Atlas responds that’s “we were trying to aim for a public television half hour which is 28 minutes and 45 seconds”. This demonstrates how the television industry is influencing the cinematographic decisions of the artist, and that because his budget is “never enough” he must ensure his product is profitable. He also espouses an idea mentioned in Sidney Peterson’s essay that “The problems are basic. They involve not only movement but the manipulation of the medium in ways that will make it possible for a given film to require seeing and hearing more than once.” Atlas explicitly states that he is “very conscious about putting enough in the work so that perhaps you couldn’t get it all in one viewing and it would be worth seeing again” because he intended the viewer to want to go out and purchase video disc’s and videotapes so that they may watch it again. I think it was the commercialization of video art that Antin was afraid of and like I states in my previous responses while valid concerns they are a natural emergence of the medium.
Reading Nancy Becker's conversation with Charles Atlas truly opened my eyes to the art behind film-making. Atlas emphasized the importance of detailed when stating, "A subliminal or subconscious effect on the work is that details become important, whether you decide you're going to control them or not"(35). The film-makers pay such close attention to things that are so small, yet make a big difference in the film. I also learned that he doesn't just start shooting. Instead, he is prepared going into the shoot, similar to how we had to storyboard our assignments. That way, it's much less expensive and it takes less time editing as well. Filming dance also takes effort from the dancers, as Atlas reveals that they cannot use all of their energy in one shoot, since they have to use their energy in the next takes. Overall, the film-makers, most of the time, don't use their first takes.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Charles Atlas likes to move the cameras while he's filming, stating that it gives the work "a freer, faster kind of feeling"(134). I feel that just having the camera on the tripod is limited, and moving the camera is better.
Another interesting thing I found is that he experiments through other people's works, since it's too expensive to experiment on your own. So he looks at other people's works, and sees what worked and what didn't, which I thought was a very smart thing to do. Overall, Becker does an excellent job during the interview with Charles Atlas,and Atlas breaks down the details behind filming Cunningham dance.
This article highlighted a very common exception of video medium, which we implicitly know at the back of our minds. I cannot think of any feature presentation where dance has been captured in totality covering every movement and gesture in a continuous time. If such piece was created, it would definitely look cumbersome and an artistic mess. Though the article pointed out that movements make dancers and not the other way around, it doesn’t seem very plausible for famous choreographers and dancers who we see on screen, which have their camera topography set in advance, to deduce maximum meaning and/or effect from their movements.
ReplyDeleteIn Nancy Becker’s Filming Cunningham dance: A conversation with Charles Atlas, it’s interesting that Charles Atlas states how important choreographers are in media when an article we read before was completely opposite of what Atlas said. In my opinion, I agree with Atlas’s statement of how crucial the roles of choreographers are in media especially in film/video that contains dances. It is also interesting how free and open filming is. What I mean by that is there are not a lot of “rules” or “restrictions” what creating a video. This can be applied to the “partnership” between dancers and the choreographers with their cameras. One could either film the dancers in a long take or in multiple takes. But they have to work together in order to create a masterpiece. One thing that I got from this interview that I found very personal to me is the fact that everyone has a different style; everyone is unique in their own way. People get their own “style” from other works and influences; they do not develop their own “style” out of the blue. They are influenced and affected by the things that happen in their lives.
ReplyDeletei feel that the statement that sums up this article is "...the medium of television could clearly dominate, rather than coexist with, the choreography and other elements of a performance" (35). It seemed that Charles Atlas and Merce Cunninghams collaboration was focused on trying to learn each others medium and language in order to effectivley communicate each others style. In other words, when taking the dance art and translating it to television, there must be some major changes in technique and form within the dancer in order for the dance to have similar content. Instead of just filming the dancer with the camera in a single position (imitating and replicating an audience member), both dance and film language must converge to create a new form. Many of the films that are described, seem to focus on some technique that Atlas and Cunningham are trying to explore within the new dance film medium.
ReplyDeleteIn "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation With Charles Atlas," Nancy F. Becker presents a contrasting view of dance and film to last week's article by Sidney Peterson and Marian Van Tuyl. Peterson and Van Tuyl argued that dance performances could not effectively be captured on film or video. Becker's interview with Atlas proposes that it indeed can, it just takes a lot of preparation and time. Atlas noted the importance of the relationship between a filmmaker and the coreographer in order to make an effective film. Atlas said that "you definitely see a lot more when you watch things on video than you are aware of noticing on the stage" (133). This goes against what Peterson and Van Tuyl said in their article, which shows how subjective film media is. Atlas said that the fluidity of dance could be maintained on film by using special camera techniques such as panning rather than zooming and the use of the Steadicam and a dolly. He also noted that some of the dance films he worked on with Cunningham featured long continuous takes, which also displays fluidity and maintains rhythm.
ReplyDeleteIn Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas is an article regarding a specific choreographer, Merce Cunningham, but reveals much about the nature of dance films in general. The interviewee, Charles Atlas, speaks about collaborating with Cunningham. He says how both film and dance do not necessarily combine the way they make it combine. Meaning film could simply record from a distance the dance, but has the potential to do so much more than a stage performance. Instead, close-ups and other angles are shot, bringing the potential of film to its maximum. I think that this is a very good point. That when dances are shot, they can be more than recorded: they can be enhanced. However, this should only be done if the filmmakers are skilled. I have seen some films or TV shows in which the dance itself is obstructed by the film. Meaning, at certain points the dance should be seen from afar, such as in the Lightfoot Parade seen in class, but unskilled filmmakers often are busy with a close-up at these moments, so that the dance is in fact impeded upon rather than enhanced. Atlas also discusses having to make changes in the dance for the dancers, and trying to allow them to dance for extended periods rather than short bursts. The reality is, however, that long shots are not ideal, as the camera angle should change, and that changes will have to be made in the dance. As he also mentions, it is possible to enhance the motion of a dance by placing the camera in locations in which it seems to take no room impeding the dancers. Of course the spaciousness is an illusion, but if the dancers are to participate in film choreography, sacrifices must be made. Film is a very different medium. I thought it interesting that sound was mentioned the way it was, in that Atlas thought it such necessary element. Atlas spoke of foley sound effects belonging there simply because they exist in a real dance. It sounded naïve and outdated, but in a way makes much sense. It roots the audience to the reality of dancing rather than the enhanced thing it becomes through film.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "A Conversation With Charles Atlas", this interview brought more clarity to my understanding of film making. Throughout Nancy's interview with John Cage, I found myself more interested in learning more about the techniques used and his collaboration with Merce Cunningham. Interestingly, in the interview, John cage emphasized on how Merce's successfully made dancing look spacious in a small area in films, such that "you don't neccessarily feel that the camera is confining the dancers" (133). Which is important when producers are on a budget and have limited resources and space. In addition, Cage also asserts that many believe that the sound of dancing goes along with the music, when in fact, "the music accompanies it, but it's not the only thing you're aware of aurually when you watch a dance" (134), which is true, because often times music can be a bit distracting and causes the audience to lose focus on the choreography.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation With Charles Atlas", they discuss the mediums of dance and film and how film can dominate the movement of dance. I disagree because film and dance can coexist, the only difference is that the perspective changes. Whether it be the camera angle or speed that changes in the film, the movement of dance remains constant. In fact, I feel as though, film only enhances the dynamics and emotion of dance. When watching William Forsynthe's video, the close-ups of the dancers only enhanced their movement. Sometimes during a dance performance, in order to maintain the rhythm, they move quite quickly and drastically. Film or the video medium can record these actions and then slow it down or be replayed and in that sense, it can give the audience a better perspective and understanding.
ReplyDeleteThe reading “Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas” is mainly about the interview of Charles Atlas by Nancy Becker. Charles Atlas declares the importance of the relationship between Artists and choreographers in filming. A good director can catch up choreographers’ rhythm, and using perfect lighting and shooting skills to present dancers’ body; a good choreographer can comprehend the director easily, and use her dancing skills and body to present what director wants. I think this theory is right for every actors and filmmakers. Understand each other and understand the script is most important thing for filming. Every small detail can influence the whole dancing video. “A subconscious effect on the work is that detail become important, whether you decide you’re going to control them or not. ” An eye contact, a small action or a smile, all of these little details can change the feeling of the film. I think Charles Atlas presents us a perfect explanation of film making, not only for dancing film but for all filming, director and actors needs to catch up the main theme of the video, and use the skills and details to presents a better film.
ReplyDeleteIn Nancy Becker's interview with Charles Atlas, I found it very interesting when she asked him about why they choose to mix in ambient sounds to their soundtracks. Charles Atlas responds saying that basically ambient sound is something that they never not mix in because it complements the music and dancing so well. He also brings up the fact that television shows always adds clapping sounds because "they think it would be funny if you saw someone put two hands together," and it just made me imagine television shows without the audience clapping sounds and laughter and how boring it really would be to watch.
ReplyDeleteI also couldn't help but agree with Atlas when he said "he'd rather move the camera than zoom-in." Definitely there's a right time for everything and in his case of filming dancers, I definitely feel like leaving your camera on a tripod and zooming in and out just seems very boring and uninteresting. Moving the camera and being next to the dancers and feeling their emotions seems a bit more "right."
Nancy Becker conducts an interview with Charles Atlas in the article, "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation With Charles Atlas". I thought that Becker did a good job asking various questions that picks up interesting facts and what goes behind the scene of Atlas's and Merce's collaboration together. Atlas's response to Becker's question about the ambient sound. He explains how it is part of the dance so he never leaves it out. Afterwards, he brings up a very ironic point in which television, often times, leaves out "the sound of feet on the floor" because the viewers do not think it is weird while they do think it's weird if the the sound of claps are missing if there's someone doing a clapping motion with their hands. I wonder what exactly leads us, audience, to think this way in which we don't notice that the ambient sound of footsteps are missing.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting when Atlas explains how dancers needs to pace themselves when performing in front of a camera. I never realized how dance is performed very differently from live performances. According to Atlas, the dancers needs to really pace themselves as they have to work with the camera-man, who usually do not have enough practice of the dance than the actual dancers have. It seems ironic in which these dancers need to have "enough energy" to control their pace (usually slower pace for the camera to be able to move with them). Usually, the more you move and exercise, the more energy you need. However, it is ironic in this case when Atlas explains how you need energy for slower paced movement. Nonetheless, this is understandable since dances seems to be easier when you're in smooth, fast motion of movement rather than slow but having detailed and small movements.
In contrast with last week’s “The Slowing Down of the Subject: A Medium for Choreographers,” this week’s interview with John Cage explains that video can really capture dance and provided several useful pointers to keep in mind. Dance and video are interdependent. The director has to be able, willing, and ready to change the choreography without altering the ideas of shape. For example, the interview mentioned “[designing] arm movements that can be altered without damaging the ideas of shape so that if it is necessary to make a change during the shooting it won’t be a whole other thing.” Another interesting point that Cage mentioned was how Merce exploited the depth by using the triangular floor space as seen by the camera’s “eye” to his advantage in designing his choreographies to look more spacious than it is so that it doesn’t feel like the camera is confining the dancers.
ReplyDeleteIn “Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas,” Nancy Becker interviews filmmaker Charles Atlas about his collaborative works with choreographer Merce Cunningham. In her interview, Becker inquires about Atlas’ relationship with Cunningham and the techniques, strategies, and challenges associated with capturing choreographed dance on film. Atlas talks about integrating the rhythm of dancers to the rhythm of the camera, his use of ambient sound in dance, the adaptation dancers must undergo whilst adjusting to being filmed, his preferred camera movement techniques, and the differences between shooting for film and shooting for television. Becker's interview reveals the intricacy of capturing dance on film, and the many technical aspects considered in doing so. An interesting read.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read the article Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas by Nancy Becker and attending lecture, I had not thought about films geared toward the topic of dance, or even the specific choreography for dance films.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Atlas was so detailed with his answers made me wonder about all the work that really goes into the filming of such a video. Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of this article is the fact that it brings up people's seemingly natural acceptance of a dance without its audio counterpart, but their unwilling absorption of an image of someone clapping without sound. These are little, subconscious things that I was not exceedingly aware of, but it being brought up like this made me think deeper about other things I might have overlooked about film or dance, such as line movement and small gestures made with the hands or feet.
I especially liked the part where Atlas said that he thought "that some choreographers will choreograph only for the camera, but [he doesn't] believe that any dancers will just dance for the camera" (137). For some reason, this brought me to the idea of all squares being rectangles, but not all rectangles being squares. It is a strange comparison, but it works for me.
In the article “Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas”, Nancy L. Becker interviews video filmmaker Charles Atlas about his collaborations with Merce Cunningham’s choreography and dance for video recordings. The interview reveals many interesting perspectives and opinions on the intermixing of video and dance. I found it of particular interest how both the choreographer made changes for the format but also how filming had a reverse effect on choreography on stage (ie. increased attention to detail/perspective). Atlas does a good job of describing the intricacies of how the collaborations of film and dance must compromise: dancers learning how to work in front of a camera, taking longer takes in consideration of the dancers, and developing joint rhythms between the motion of the cameras and the motion of the dance. In a broader sense, he discuses the ideas and challenges of collaboration between film, video, television, and performance arts.
ReplyDeleteI personally was excited about this reading because I realized that "Cunningham and Cage" from the song "La Vi Boheme" from the musical "Rent" were the two artists that were being mentioned in this reading. Anyways, I enjoyed reading about how Atlas and Cunningham were combining two different media (dance and film) into one, and that they understood that each was different, and therefore had a great partnership. Of course I would have liked to see all the pieces mentioned (I only found some online) so that I could know what they were talking about, but Atlas' descriptions of how they worked were good. I've enjoyed this reading and the lecture about using the body as its central instrument. I didn't realize how much more work putting dance on film was versus just being on the stage. For both the choreographer must be aware of what the audience sees, but for film you can also use different angle shots, different lighting, different sets, different spaces to get your story across, and you need more than a choreographer; you need a film professional. I really liked the part about using music versus the ambient noise. I used to think dance had to go to music, but after watching some examples, one can see that you focus on the movement and some actions seem stronger when you hear them.
ReplyDeleteNancy F. Becker begins “Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas” by introducing her two subjects. The first thing I found interesting about the interview was Atlas’s statement that, “You definitely see a lot more when you watch things on video than you are aware of noticing on the stage” (133). It seems that it would make the planning of the video or film much more difficult because you have to be thinking about absolutely everything that is in the frame. This interview allowed us to get behind the scenes of choreographing and filming dance. As students in Vis70N we can relate somewhat because we have made a couple videos ourselves but because I am not choreographing, I value the discussion between Becker and Atlas. It has opened my eyes, so to speak. During lecture I found myself appreciating the dance videos more because I was aware of the complexity of making dance films. As we heard from Professor Trigilio, with this kind of film there is as much choreography of the camera as there is of the dance and Atlas reaffirms this: “The process of shooting is about getting the rhythm of the camera and the rhythm of the dancing right” (134).
ReplyDeleteI admire the the creativity and use of camera by Cunningham. Particularly, the discussion of film and video influencing his stage works where details, subliminal or subconscious, become very complex in the control and expression of the medium. I think this idea translates to forms of video other than dance where gestures and rhythmic detail, can become complex and provide additional narrative. Also, when these details are combined, they can produce works similar to what was shown at lecture last night that produce an aggregate image like the dancers in the Busby Berkley film.
ReplyDeleteThis interview was interesting because it allowed me to see how dance is captured in film. The way dance is captured seems to be in between the artificial and genuine realms of filming. Although there are cuts and editing like adding ambient sounds after filming, the dancing itself is done in a way where it can be captured realistically on camera. Although the dancers have to use different techniques when dancing, the differences are more so about pacing rather than any other drastic changes. I found this article very interesting because prior to reading this I didn't know so much work went into filming dances. I thought that the films were usually done in one take, as if the performer were performing for the camera. Now that I know that this is not the case, and that dancers dance without music, it's very intriguing to think how this type of art is filmed without sacrificing certain elements of dance that make it what it is.
ReplyDeletet’s interesting to see how the choreography is not in the center of production, but how the production/editing plans and choreography are equally evaluated before the shoot. Atlas explains the importance of space and protraction in dance films because it gives a more fluid shot of the dancer. Also, the moving camera instead of a zoom can place the viewer in the energy of the dance. The interview reveals how intricate editing can be because of the small details of sound and movement. Atlas explains how a small piece of ambient music can have a profound effect on screen when paired with the dance. I agree because the dance can be aggressive without sound, but with an ambient track, it can soften our view and give us a different interpretation of the dance. Also, Atlas explains the disruption of the dance and how they break it down. Recording a dance can be exhausting for the performer because the momentum is broken if the director continually stops the dance to move to a different angle.
ReplyDeleteRoamin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXLs1wE04_s
ReplyDeleteFractions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-D-INSnlUM
Merce Cunnungham: http://www.youtube.com/user/MerceCunninghamDance
It helped me to watch the videos to understand a bit what Atlas was talking about.
I found it rather interesting when Atlas was talking about the rhythm, he said that the shooting is about getting the rhythm of the camera and the rhythm of the dancing (p.134). And later on he says that the dances are made in silence and used to hearing the sound of dancing. I always thought that dancing was a way of expressing the music. But this is another way of seeing it, which I appreciate. When I took a look at some of the pieces, I could clearly see that he prefers to move the camera (p.135) rather than zoom think makes it more “floating” but adds also a bit of a “shakyness” which can be interpret as more authentic and real. Compared to last week’s reading about the The Slowing down of the subject: a medium for choreographers, by Peterson and van Tuyl this is actually “dances in films”, but none the less dance.
The article "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas" by Nancy F. Becker is contrasting with the article we read last week. Unlike last week's author, Becker believes that dance is able to be captured with film. For this to happen, it is important that the director and choreographer are on the same page and that they are willing to be flexible with their plan. Sometimes when filming a dance, it does not look as lively as it would in person, so movements must be changed and angles have to collaborate with the subject. One of Merce's greatest film achievements is the ability to angle the camera in so that the he makes the dance look very spacious and not confined by space.
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing some dance clips from lecture last night, I believe that it is possible to capture dance, however, it is not easy. This article has made me aware of how much thought and preparation is given into filming dance. Each shot and cut have to match the choreography and already be planned out before shooting. Dancers have to be prepared to do multiple takes at times. Budget given are never are enough. It is a difficult thing to make a dance film, however, if one shows the same passion for dance and film intersection as Atlas, the result makes it all worthwhile.
This article is quite insightful on the techniques and methods used by Charles Atlas to film dance. I found it interesting when he said how his tastes in shooting dance changed over time; how before, he liked to used zooms and now, he likes to actually move the camera. The way a dance is shot close-up, like the videos Trigilio showed on Monday, makes the dance seem like such an abstract piece and really grabs the attention of the audience. We are indeed fortunate that Atlas has decided to share his expertise with the interviewer, and through him, us. It really made me appreciate the difficulty and planning involved with filming a dance.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that attracts me most throughout the interview is Atlas's talks about the usage of moving camera. It actually recalls me some war movies I watched before. I believe it is just 10 years ago, the editors were still using the fast zoom-in, zoom-out and panning technique to construct the tension of war. However, looking at the movies in, especially, these 3 to 5 years, while the funds for a movie keep raising, the movie makers start installing rails in the jingles and trenchers to allow cameras move along the characters. Consequently, an audience is not only watching an intense soldier running, but running with them while feeling the same speed, breath and nervousness.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, his collaborating with the choreographer reminds me the last reading "The Slowing Down of the Subject: A Medium for Choreographers". After reading the last reading, I thought a dance that is to be taped to be shown as a video should be completely different from a stage dance. However, from his words about how he works with the choreographer, my understanding has changed. It feel like that a stage dance can to transferred to a dance on video by changing some of the gestures(maybe the length of a step, the depth of a bow) when two of them still look very much alike.
I found this article to be particularly interesting, because it shows how it is in fact possible for performance and media to exist together in perfect harmony. Each form of art definitely has something to offer the other form, for example, in the way that once Cunningham began to make his films, he began to pay more attention to "little" gestures of performances and began incorporating these aspects into his choreography. I realized from the reading that it would be quite difficult to film and edit a choreographed dance, solely in terms of how long each take is. To film something for four or five minutes and then have to later find the parts where you wanted to edit and touch up certain things would be quite tedious and time consuming. But despite the complexities of the art form, and the financial restraints placed upon them, Atlas and Cunningham are able to produce great works of art.
ReplyDeleteI think the main implication of "Filming Cunningham Dance: A Conversation with Charles Atlas," is that when a dance is filmed well, magic can happen. It shows us how the colloboration of film and dance creates a meaningful product greater than the sum of its parts, and becomes an artform all its own.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite clear, however, that this colloboration is not easy. Both the dancers and filmmakers have to go out of their way to acheive success. Dancers used to completing a dance without interruption often have to repeat certain sections for the filmmaker, and maintain a consistently high-energy performance throughout multiple takes. The choreography of the dance is also influenced in a film, and certain gestures and movements may be emphasized in the work. The filmmaker's challenge is capturing the essence of a dance with what is debatably the most technically difficult medium out there. This is only compounded by the fact that film budgets are always too small.
Ultimately, as with any film, passion is required to make a dance film come to life. It is a labor of love, and requires dedication from everyone involved. Atlas puts it simply - "...we make the work to interest ourselves primarily."
The virtuoso’s authenticity in front of the camera, and the camera’s ability to “cinematically” frame the subject are simply supplements to the montage they create as an interdisciplinary art. In a way, these disciplines are independently limited but the purpose of their collaboration is to create a media that is besides the point of authenticity and cinematic techniques. As a collaborative, they are a highly technical combination. Atlas and Cunningham have created dance and film as an interdisciplinary art, in which dance and film work together in synchrony, both meticulously choreographed. The idea is deceptively simple: it is easy for the camera to consume the dancer through its cinematic techniques, and for the dancer to disregard the camera. The art strives for equilibrium. Atlas, in the article explains that the camera possesses the potential to enhance the dancer's virtuosity, to create depth and detail through the dancer's movements and the space s/he moves in. The dancer provides that potential through his/her talent. It is a highly successful combination; the only drawback is the fact that the dancer must be sensitive to the fact that his/her movements are deconstructed by the camera. The camera demands the dancer’s sensitivity to particular movements so those are successfully shot. This requires several takes, meaning the dancer must learn how to control his/her energy expenditure. That seems to be what limits dance and film/video—the fact that in order for dance to be a media, the movements must be deconstructed for the sake of framing so authenticity is questioned. But again, that is besides the purpose of the collaboration. The purpose is to exhibit dance through a different medium (the camera), and for the camera to intensely pay attention to detail highly choreographed, bringing this media to another stage.
ReplyDeleteBecker points out some interesting insight contracting with the article from last week.He believes that the physical sense and the rhythm of the dancer. Live performance can actually be capture with the film,even connect the audience and the dancer more directly.Through the shooting angles, length of the tape the director/ the audience are able to experience dancers ,gesture,movement without changing the idea of the shape.He believes that"anyone who works in the film and video with dance gets more involved with details" I think it is very interesting to see how he mention Merce's film/video choreography and the design of its camera movement response to the idea of the stage art.The translation of the forms,gestures,movement,and other details in the video art can be complex,but constructive.
ReplyDeleteI loved this piece because I got to see how a director makes his movie. I am fascinated with directors and why they did or did not do a specific shot. On page 134 I was jealous of Atlas because he said he knows what exact shot he wants and how he is going to cut the shot. I wish i could figure out how to see my film and the visions I have, in the ways he does. It was interesting to be able to see this insight and learn from a well known director of how he makes film.
ReplyDeleteWhile the previous essay "The Slowing Down of the Subject: A Medium for Choreographers" had said that there is a large separation between film and dance, this interview refutes this claim. Charles Atlas talks about his collaborative work with Merce Cunningham and from my understanding, he shows how film and dance can blend very well. Although filming does expose a lot more to the viewer than say a stage dance, it is for the better. For example, Atlas says that Merce is able to not only choreograph for video, but he can also add depth and make "dancing look spacious in a very small area" as a way of exploiting the elements a camera can add to choreography.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to point out is that dance and film are created in different ways. Dance is generally rehearsed and all done in one set while film is commonly taken in many short takes. This conflict however is explained by Atlas as he says that long takes are encouraged to let the dancers dance and keep their tempo and rhythm. In this way dance can be represented within film unlike what was said in the previous essay by Sidney Peterson and Marian Van Tuyl.
One quote in particular stood out to me, "Sometimes the film considerations precede the dance considerations and sometimes it's the other way around. People find it hard to believe that the choreography does not precede the decision about how to shoot it". This is what was mentioned in lecture last night... how the the two mediums (dance and video) work together to produce something that could not just be seen on stage. I also think its important that the piece is then becomes not just about the human physicality of the dance, but rather, through video, it incorporates a sense of time, scale and location. -Amy M
ReplyDeleteI feel that this article is related to the reading that we had last week. However, the difference is that despite the disadvantages of filming dance, Atlas and Cunnigham worked collaboratively to utilize the advantages of the two different mediums to create a new type of medium that effectively communicates with the audience. Instead of just pointing out the problems and the complications of capturing dance on film, I liked how Atlas described filming dance as "pacing yourself" for the camera.
ReplyDeleteI found it remarkable that the concerns expressed by David Antim as to the influence television has on video productions and the budgetary concerns of the artist manifest themselves in this interview between Charles Atlas and Nancy Becker. When asked “what are the factors in determining the length of a piece” Atlas responds that’s “we were trying to aim for a public television half hour which is 28 minutes and 45 seconds”. This demonstrates how the television industry is influencing the cinematographic decisions of the artist, and that because his budget is “never enough” he must ensure his product is profitable. He also espouses an idea mentioned in Sidney Peterson’s essay that “The problems are basic. They involve not only movement but the manipulation of the medium in ways that will make it possible for a given film to require seeing and hearing more than once.” Atlas explicitly states that he is “very conscious about putting enough in the work so that perhaps you couldn’t get it all in one viewing and it would be worth seeing again” because he intended the viewer to want to go out and purchase video disc’s and videotapes so that they may watch it again. I think it was the commercialization of video art that Antin was afraid of and like I states in my previous responses while valid concerns they are a natural emergence of the medium.
ReplyDeleteBy Mike Boulrice