Dance and Film, Film and Dance: A Ripening Discourse
Dance and film meet, collaborate, and intersect in countless ways to create the singular genre of videodance. The "duet" between film and dance is continually evolving, and no doubt advances in technology will expand its potential even further. As the form develops, important questions persist, spurring innovation and discussion. For example, "Can the camera dance with the dancer?" and "Do [live] motion and filmed recording leave the same image traces in our memory?" (p. 1) Dance's Duet with the Camera addresses these and other potent questions from various perspectives. In addition to an introduction "Dance and Film as Siblings" and conclusion "Where the Gaze Lands" the book is divided into five sections: Site/Sight and the Body; Movement Beyond the I/Eye; Querying Praxis; Bodies, Spaces, Camera; and New Technologies: Dance as 3D's Ultimate Agent. Co editor Telory D. Arendell explains at the outset that the intention of this text is not to "privilege either side of this dance/film duality, but rather to explore the many ways in which these two artistic languages might argue with each other, concur, borrow techniques, and act as each other's doppelgangers when thrown into close contact" (p. 16) The editors have mediated and arranged the book's discourse well and its content is not limited to the genre of videodance. Indeed, there is a wide range of approaches to dance and film and to the many ways they collaborate. Several of the authors are interdisciplinary artists currently working in some capacity with both dance and film, and many are situated in academia; for some, the research and current practice tends toward the film side, and for others dance is more their primary focus. In the short history of screendance theory a burgeoning field contributions have tended to slant toward either dance or film, based on the expertise of whoever is writing. Perhaps in response to this trend, the editors' desire to avoid favoring any one approach is clear. After all, dance and film are "different genres, with different emphases, points of view and undoubtedly different politics" (p. 137) The text does not shy away from the politics of these art forms. One overarching issue, not exclusive to this book, is the ongoing debate over what to call this genre, this collaboration between dance and film. "Videodance," "screendance," "dance for camera," "cinedance," and "dance film" are some of the terms used; the authors in the text make different choices. In the monograph Screendance: Inscribing the Ephemeral Image, which is cited throughout the text, Douglas Rosenberg makes a convincing argument for "screendance" as a title of the form. I had begun to use that term in my professional practice and teaching after reading his text. Now I am re evaluating, having read about approaches taken by some of the authors in this text: Melanie Kloetzel argues persuasively for "dance film," while Angela Kassel opts for "videodance," maintaining that this term is the most widely used. In their co written chapter, editors Ruth Barnes and Arendell discuss whether the