Jiri Kylian - Learning to love the choreographic designer.

There is a constant ongoing debate in dance and film circles, whether "classical" or "neo-classical" choreography lends itself to "dancefilm".

Certainly in the talking-shops there seems to be a tension between those who regard the world of recorded moving image divisible into specific areas of definable interest, and those who see dance and film as a series of inviting and fruitful grey areas of creative exploration and experimentation, ripe for collaboration between moving-image makers of all persuasions.

One of the more contentious issues is whether classical dance as a moving-image language, is only useful, assimilable or available as a plastic communicative vehicle in creatively limited and anachronistic forms?
A type which can be captured at best, as more or less well-crafted filmic records of stage or inherently "theatrical" performances.

From a limited point of view, the argument could be put forward, that formal neo-classical choreographic vocabulary and histrionic presentation, is in the nature of its embodied technical requirements, not suitable for informing on or sustaining interest in any relevant way on cinematographical moving-image.

In some senses classical dance vocabulary has not developed or matured into much more than what is essentially a 2 dimensional theatrical spectacle.
The body-forms described and the available skill-set on offer by classically trained bodies may not be best presented in any other form than viewed straight from the front in a live context.

In the grand operatic mimetic pantomime stories of old, and to their shame, some of those of the more recent offerings, remain essentially archaic, often staid, occasionally ludicrous and less acccessible to generations brought up on method rather than metaphor. Assigned as simple, spectacular, stupor-fodder for the overfed Christmas afternoon TV viewing slot.

In fact much of it anathema to those whom assume the capacity and inventive scope for close-up and occasionally discomforting views of the internal world of psychology and personal meaning as expressed through movement, is literally unlimited.

On the other hand, if one sets aside the message and preconceptions about what it may or may not contain, and concentrates on the medium, what we discover is human bodies. Machines of infinite possibility, great skill and potential invention, which when harnessed with sufficient finesse, delicacy and expertise, become capable of speaking the most subtle of emotive and semiotic languages.

At this level, the only limitations inherent in making the classical vernacular as meaningful as any other kineographic messaging "system", is the skill and sophistication of the cinematographic direction and the ability to rise above banality or gratuitous theatricality by the makers of movement. Most importantly for both to find common ground if indeed they are seperate entities.

In my experience as a choreographer for films, videos and stage, part of the "problem" is that choreographers have a highly developed and sophisticated skill-set and competencies which by definition engender the same levels of authorative 'control" as the directors who, if they are not one and the same person, are in nomine in charge. This mostly subliminal status issue, becomes all too often an inevitable human/ego-tussle between auteurs, in which the "director" has to be seen to "win".

One senses this often with the moving-image auteurs who are by training and background cinematographers rather than choreographers. Time and again I hear well-known moving image makers pontificate on and unconsciously downplay the role of choreography in dancefilm.
This is attributable more to an inherent and little sensed loss of control of their "project" than any genuine belief that a well founded choreographic design is irrelevant or useless to them.

This might account for the current predilection, some might say, aggressive promotion for "anti" or "post"-choreographic projects and random movement generation, favoured by many of the current crop of moving-image makers and their sources of support and authority.

Without a formal movement design and comprehensible language, moving image becomes what we too often see. A series of disjointed, visually maladroit moving violations on a flicker-screen. Fine, if that is exactly what the auteur intends, but taken at a stretch this can make for very long, dull viewing experiences.

One might posit that if highly stylised movement languages are a bar to entry, then we must also discount every choreographer with an original voice of every movement discipline. Bar anyone, then you bar them all.
Selection is merely personal prejudice dressed as fashion statement

What I think the three excerpts below more than amply demonstrate, is that in the hands of Jiri Kylian, a master of the modern neo-classical dance form, meaning, internal dialogue, metaphysics all can be made to work at any level from abstract and metaphorical right through to the achingly sensual and overtly realistic, if albeit highly-stylised movement language.

All elements of the choreographic design, undeniably complimented by an amplification through skillful, understated cinematic version and vision.

While still essentially filmed "performance", the material below, using the subtlest of camera work, reveals a world of seamless and expert synthesis between formal choreography and brilliantly simple and effective cinematography.
Creating for all practical purposes a new form which is neither merely filmed performance nor dance for the camera.

We are approaching an unique hybrid in and of itself, with much to give to choreographers who are wary of the camera, with their own important message to impart about the human condition, using the human form.

This "style" also opens a whole new world of possibilities in choreographic design, and has much to share with film makers who find "dance" intimidating, limiting or irrelevant to their sense of making meaning through movement.