While I am a second year of The Ohio State University Department of Dance, part of our degree curriculum in the department encourages students to start thinking about research in the moments that we enter our professional career as artists. In order to keep dance in the forefront of society's art scene, it is essential that we continue to research our questions. We were not limited to performance research, but also film, medical, production, history, or any other subject that we desired to tie in with dance. The assignment was broad, this prompted me to conduct my research on my interest with movement improvisation and dance technology.
Spontaneous decisions that are held within movement improvisation interested me on how to convey this through film for the audience. Improvisation does many things for the dancer, compositionally, creatively, and the enjoyment of their work. This too can be applied to cinematic improvisation. My research analyzed improvisation created by various videography tools, editing processes, special effects, and dynamics while filming an artist exploring with movement improvisation. Beginning my process, I focused on how to find the audience in a position that they can recognize the spontaneous decisions created by the videographer from the cues of the dancer. I wondered if conveying this feeling was even possible for the audience and if it is effectively stimulating. The obstacle that I find first is that since the camera is in the room, this ultimately effects the dancers improvisation and is fatal to the genuine qualities that improvisation holds for the dancer and the videographer.
I asked five fellow artists to improvise continuously for 12 minutes, one hour in total of improvisational footage. This provided enough time for play, exhaustion, and opportunity for myself, the filmmaker, and the dancer to be acquainted with the space, the camera, and the creative environment. Mia Williams, Danielle Barker, Sophia Smith, Laura Patterson, and Haley Candela were dancers featured in this film and had only a few directions to get them moving:
"I have selected a few songs to play as you improvise for 12 minutes. They are mostly white noise for your conscious to flow and to create a more comfortable environment. I will have a camera and you can consider me as another artist in the room, as is the camera. You can acknowledge and play with me and the camera as much or as little as you would like. Focus on your weight; resiliency, lightness, and strength. Your opportunity in these 12 minutes should feel unlimited. Let's begin!"
I said this to each dancer as we entered the space making the dialogue the same for each dancer. I wanted to create a space that I am comfortable in and that they are comfortable in. In the twelve minutes of improvisation I was constantly changing positions in regards to the dancer, moving from their cues, and exploring the opportunity in the room. It was as if I was another dancer and just had one more view point to consider. I found a lot of new questions and only some answers.
Through this research I recognize that the audiences acknowledgement that the filmmakers improvisation does not come off as improvisation. I consider improvisation is a process, not a product, audience members can only experience that the frames that they are seeing could be conveyed as planned for they are set. My decisions made from the dancers were spontaneous in the moment, but that would not have come across obviously due to the creation of the dance film. As I created the film, edits were made off of the cues of the dancers. Anytime I found the focus of the dancer to change, so did the angle. It shows a glimpse into the spontaneous and ever changing feeling of improvisation.
I also recognize that the dancers admitted that they made decisions in their movement in order to create the best "angle" and their experience as improvisers had changed for this image idea was a problem. The aesthetic of the film became the forefront. While I want to convey the feeling of improvisation to my audience and the frame is a big part of this experience, improvisation focuses on what is happening in the now and not thinking of what just happened, or what might come. If the dancer is thinking of how they will look or what future steps might be more successful, I argue that the process is frayed. Only two of the five dancers blatantly recognized the camera with their eyes or by touch. This is not a negative outcome, but something to acknowledge. How can we capture the experience of the dancer and filmmaker for the audience if the aesthetic of the work is too big of an elephant in the room?
This small experiment is just a piece of this research. Along with this physical research, I have written a paper on the significant historical moments in cinematic improvisation and movement improvisation and how we can in todays time combine them to create spontaneity in the audience. I argue that yes, this is possible. We have seen in history that it is most effective when the director and actor or performer have a relationship and acknowledgment of work to then create an atmosphere of genuine improvisation. To involve the audience, I imagine a interactive space for people to play with along with the filmmaker and dancer. Ah, dreams. Thoughts. and more questions....
This is merely a small step into this question and project. I want to continue this conversation with more research, more play time, and more questions to answer. Below is the film. Notice that I have not included the music for the white noise was a comfort for the dancer, and if included it would be yet another thing to consider for the editor. I look forward to include this in later processes.