I like the portrayal of dance in an everyday situation, and that the dance is not so stylised to appear like dance or a performance of dance but just a further, more enhanced expression of walking and experiencing a specific place. The movement is not about beauty or virtuosity but an expression of Shahar's inner world, one that is intimately connected to the outer world. Does the filmmaker also improvise? Did he know beforehand what and how he would use the camera? I like to think not - if Shahar's movement was improvised but the trajectory set, was the movement of the camera also improvised, it's "trajectory" (following Shahar) set as well? I also appreciate that the dancer is male and I find myself not objectifying but observing him.
To improve this piece, one could play with different musical selections that don't push the spectator in specific emotional direction but allow them to be swept up by the movement of body and camera. One could also play with repetition: the same movement in another space, the same space but on a rainy day (letting that affect the movement), the same space and score but the camera independent, possibly only catching Shahar at certain moments. I would be interested in adding another layer of chance; can one improvise in the editing of the film? Playing all the recorded material on more than one computer and then selecting in the moment when to stop, cut, add, repeat or continue? Possibly like a Dada poem; randomly selecting which scene or edit comes next, not chronologically.
This work relates to Katrin McPherson and Kirstie Simpson's Screendance Lab, in that they are both examples of improvised dance being filmed. Both have clear locations and a score which plays with nearness and distance to and from the camera. Screendance Lab is however a group piece and the dynamics and relationships between the dancers are fundamental to the film. Both filmmakers have an interest in building relationships to the dancers and dare to move, change and edit the scenes to express that. The role of the camera is crucial to the film and as well as being a supportive part to the dancer and his actions, is also independent and plays its own character within it. I could see artistic decisions being made by the filmmakers that allowed the dancer(s) to not need to be the main focus in the film. I appreciated this because I believe it lets the body disappear from its objectivity. This for me subverted the objectifying gaze in specific moments, by giving subjectivity to the eye of the moving, gender-neutral camera.