criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:I have a background in dance and spent a lot of time with modern dancers in my college years, so if there's any general questions anyone wants to pose about these performances, I'll do my best to explain/answer/justify/&c. Not saying anyone necessarily needs such help, just offering

I'll ask the noob question: How should one approach dance? I've watched the first two films on this disc, and while I loved Pina for the sets, the energy, and the sheer spectacle of seeing bodies move across a stage in three dimensions, I didn't find any of that in these films. The dance here was much more subdued and (to my untrained eye) classical. I've held off on watching the last film until I saw some discussion here, hoping it will help me appreciate/understand what I'm seeing.

Lemmy Caution wrote:What's the best way to go through this set?

jindianajonz wrote:How should one approach dance?

I'd say for this release more than most, all of the extras included along with the set could be valuable, especially for the purpose of having something to discuss in this thread other than "The dancing looks nice." I don't think the order you watch things in matters much, other than how watching the dance films in chronological order might give you a sense of any evolution in performance style and/or filmic presentation over time.

Modern dance is the outward expression of otherwise undefinable inner explorations. Like any experimental form of art, we must prepare ourselves to reevaluate our traditional markers of quality or purpose learned from other, mostly conventional forms of art. Modern dance is kinetic and progressive in terms of beginning one place and moving forward to the next until its conclusion, so there is a "narrative" of sorts (and often pieces are set-up or supplemented in order to increase the ease of audience investment) but the pleasures we get from a great Astaire or Fosse number are different than those we get from a Graham piece, though the Venn Diagram has enough overlap to not be all that distantly related. Modern dance is conceptual, and the larger the buy-in to the rhythms and movements established on the part of the viewer, many of which must be felt and understood on an instinctual level, the larger the rewards. These are difficult pieces to fall for on first sight (though some may), so I wouldn't fret about not quite feeling it on first pass.

Here are some basic viewing tips for any modern dance piece:

-- Look at the movement of the performer. If multiple performers are on stage, look at how they interact/mirror/comment on each other in their movements.

-- Follow the progression of movement and placement of performers to the spaces they occupy. With regards to any sets or props, these too can function as "performers" of sorts in that they take up space and are in direct contrast/complicity with the performers. The relations between the set/props and the human performers can also "reveal" a piece's meaning, as everything there is there for a reason, even if the dancer/director/choreographer only understands why on an instinctual level.

-- If the piece is set to music, let its rhythms serve as a guide for the rhythms of the performers. In what way are they letting the music inhibit their actions? In what ways are they forcing their movements back against the music? If there is no music, do the rhythms of the performer or performers in silence conjure up an internal sense of the musical all the same?

-- Let your mind loose and try the zen viewing method of focusing solely on the movement of the performers and shutting out all other stimuli. Lose yourself in the motions on display.

-- Pay attention to any emotional responses the performers inspire (outside of those which are the result of improper viewing-- ie boredom, &c)-- modern dance has a reputation of either being insular or coldly impenetrable, but a good piece is not merely cryptic but an inviting mystery of human rhythm within a set space.

-- Like any art form, there are bad modern dance pieces and it's okay to fail to engage with a piece if you can reasonably compare it negatively to an equivalent successful work. However, if you are new to this kind of thing, try to keep an open mind about even the most violently disliked piece until you have a firmer foothold in the overall field.

Thank you, Domino!

One thing I had wondered while watching this film is how important the composition on stage is. It seems like it should be very important, but then you run into the problem where somebody sitting on the far left will essentially be watching a different show than somebody on the far right. I noticed one scene in Appalachian Spring where the dancer would move across the stage, periodically dropping into a "praying" position, but rather than move in a straight line she seemed to circle the camera so that she was always viewed in 90 degree profile. Is it just accepted for any performance that one lucky audience member is sitting in the "hot seat" (to borrow a term I recently learned while calibrating a new sound system) and everybody else is getting a suboptimal view of the show?

If this is the case, then it seems like watching a performance on film may be better in some ways than seeing it in a theater, though it seems to me like there are some downsides- notably having your attention forced onto a certain section of the stages and not being able to witness the movements of dancers that are outside of the frame. Film also allows Graham to move the camera around and (I'm reminded of The Red Shoes here) create a performance that couldn't possibly occur on stage, since the camera may move to locations that the audience isn't allowed. I haven't had a chance to watch the special features yet, but I'm interested in seeing the comparison of Appalachian Spring to the archive performance and finding out whether the choreography changed to compensate for the camera creating a "mobile audience"

domino harvey wrote:Modern dance is conceptual, and the larger the buy-in to the rhythms and movements established on the part of the viewer, many of which must be felt and understood on an instinctual level, the larger the rewards.

This gets to the crux of my problem, which is not what to look for, but how to talk about it. The way you have to apprehend the dancing on an instinctual level seems of a piece with music, which leads me to the same problem I always have with music discussions: I don't know how to talk about it. I can talk about how it made me feel, but not necessarily how or why, or why anyone else ought to feel the same way. I don't just lack the technical vocabulary, I also don't know how to discuss something that lies on such a non-cognitive level.

Thanks for the post, tho'. It's very helpful.

If you want to avoid subjective/personal emotional responses, off the top of my head dance can be discussed in context and with regards to its place within a larger framework, in comparison/contrast to other works of dance either modern or not, or in league to non-dance works in how we approach, digest, and ultimately respond to the work. I don't think the Martha Graham performances captured in this set lend themselves to the kind of film discussion most of us are used to and indeed I think approaching them as much more than filmed performance is problematic (though Jindiana brings up some interesting points about how the position of the spectator has changed due to editing / camera placement), but the performances themselves can elicit some interesting responses, even if they amount to "I'm not sure how to discuss this or even if we should." I'm all about people here experiencing modern dance thanks to this spotlight, having some honest but informed reactions, and yet still struggling with how to talk about (or around) art that doesn't fit our conventional modes of intake and analysis as that's a conversation that can be had with this set as well.

Great posts, domino.

I saw this disc soon after attending a couple of stunning performances by Sylvie Guillem, and the films here offered the excitement of discovering founding texts of modern dance. They're not ideal, in that they were performed late in Graham's career and (if I recall correctly) aren't all complete, but it's a bit like having Shakespeare's plays in inferior editions, or via actor's reconstructions: it's better than not having them at all.

I'm no dance expert, but I find a jazz analogy useful in approaching modern dance. When you're listening to a jazz solo, you need to listen to how it elaborates on the original melody, and how it interacts with the other instruments. In modern dance, the dance is often an elaboration of specific gestures or movements, and these could be drawn from classical dance (a pirouette), 'popular' dance (the waltz, the rumba) or simple vernacular movement (shaking hands, tripping and falling) - or they could be invented, highly artificial movements. But generally there's a linear development that you can follow like the melody line of a jazz solo, thinking about how the theme is varied, evolves, or violently breaks into something else. Then there are the larger interactions, primarily with the other dance participants (animate or inanimate) and the music (is the dancer playing with the music, playing off the music, or playing against it?), but also with the physical space (which is often defined by the movement - what is that space, and how is it defined?)

And as domino says, sometimes it's not good, but sometimes it's transcendent, and if you're lucky a great modern dance piece can make you think differently about movement, physicality and everyday interactions.

As for the Graham films on this set, I have to say that I only got that kind of revelation sporadically. I don't know if it was because these particular performances were sub-optimal, if they lost impact being staged for camera, or if they were just pieces that didn't especially resonate with me. But I nevertheless found the films historically fascinating and the overall package assembled by Criterion excellent.

My favourite film in the set was probably Appalachian Spring, and it was the dance I responded to best, but I don't think the film really approaches it entirely satisfactorily. I can understand what the director was aiming for, cutting to provide multiple perspectives on the action and tracking to complement the movement of the dancers (the camera generally moves when dancers are moving from one point on the stage to another, but not necessarily with the dancers), but in many cases I feel like it obscures what Graham was doing with her choreography (which is precise in its use of the space of the stage and did not conceptually include the camera movement). It's also a piece which relies a lot on the juxtaposition of figures and groups of figures (e.g. the solo dancers on one side of the stage balanced by an ensemble on the other), and I feel like a lot of those spatial relationships are lost in the way the film is shot and cut. Even when a group of dancers is standing still on the stage, they're providing a counterweight to the activity happening elsewhere, so they're an essential compositional element. If they weren't, they'd be offstage.

On the other hand, there are moments when the camera's fluidity really does seem to work beautifully within the conception of the choreography, generally when it's part of a long take and the movement is simple and unfussy (e.g. tracking away from the solo dancers to reveal the entire composition). It's the perpetual conundrum of how best to incorporate an additional choreographic element (the camera) into pre-existing choreography. Choreography for film, at its best, is often conceived with the camera as an integral participant in the dance. Instances like this are a bit like trying to find the best way to add a new character to Waiting for Godot. You could cop out by adding a character who just stands around and watches without participating (the equivalent of filming the whole dance in long takes from a static audience position), but that's the most boring response to the challenge.

swo17 wrote:I'd say for this release more than most, all of the extras included along with the set could be valuable,

I started watching some of the special features last night, and you are quite correct. The comparison between different versions of Appalachian Spring was interesting (even if it didn't get into how the choreography changed by dancing for a camera rather than an audience), but the documentary that starts the second disc was very helpful. I think understanding Graham as a person gave me a much better perspective on understanding her artwork.

The doc also made me think that perhaps Zedz is correct in guessing that these particular performances are a bit underwhelming- the snippets of dance shown on the documentary were much more energetic and engaging to me. Particular highlights were the early work Heretics, Madea, and (forgive the crude description but I can't remember the actual title) the one with Graham and a dude in a gold thong. These performances seemed much more energetic and primal than the two featured on the disc. I also wonder if being black and white hurts the impact of these performances. One of the performances on the documentary featured Graham in a black dress that occasionally flashed a red underlayer as she moved about- certainly this wouldn't be nearly as striking had it been drained of its color.

The documentary also had a rather alarming bit about how Graham and her early collaborater (I forget his name) would often get into heated arguments that at least once culminated in him hitting her. However, it seems that both sides glossed over this domestic abuse and simply treated it as part of the creative process. This didn't sit very well with me, but maybe that's why I'm not an artist

jindianajonz wrote:the one with Graham and a dude in a gold thong

I think we can all agree that if this wasn't the actual name of that dance, it should have been.

Jindianajonz, I also thought Heretic looked fantastic, and much more lively than the primary features. I don't have much to add, but that the PBS documentary was very helpful. (Couldn't get through the whole set this time, for both lack of time and patience). While it's not something I can foresee watching again, the context of her coming of age artistically in the 1920s was very helpful. To look at her in the context of Kandinsky and Picasso (dare I ask, could her work be considered Cubist, in a way?) was illuminating.

More than anything, there is real cinematic quality to watching the clips of something like Heretic. It feels like a great silent film honestly. It's hard not to think of those silent films I love in a Graham-esque way, in fact. Think about Falconetti in Joan, think about Metropolis. The fact that Graham was sought by Hollywood actors and actresses to work on movement is really cool, and makes a lot of sense.

Drucker wrote: (dare I ask, could her work be considered Cubist, in a way?)

In the sense that modern dance is often concerned with fragmenting / atomising movement and then reconstructing it, I think it's a valid approach.

This was a lot of fun and the Hammid did not disappoint. I like how, similar to the Saura set, the main three films sort of take you through the process of devising a dance with Night Journey coming across the most ready for film. Appalachian Spring in contrast felt more apart as if it was a bunch of legos that perhaps made up a whole, but where the pieces stand so strongly as individuals that it becomes hard to discuss it as a singular piece. Night Journey by contrast (and maybe this is due to the familiar story) really comes across as a whole story to be examined in that sort of psychological way of character motivation dictating the plot. I would love to see Criterion delve into something like this again.