Home » Serenade: how to film ballet

Comments

Serenade: how to film ballet — 9 Comments

  1. I am an engineer. Poorly positioned to appreciate art.

    But all of human endeavor seems limited. You can’t optimize everything at once.

    Perhaps I should expose myself to the arts I do not appreciate, in order to see what’s there.

  2. Yes you can get at best a sample of the best dancers moves but not a full representation on the ensemble

  3. Too close offers too much of the strain, but too far depersonalizes and threatens to turn the dancers into featureless dolls.

    If I recall correctly, Wolfgang Pauli once stated that there exists the perfect distance from which to view a beautiful woman’s face. I wasn’t able to confirm that quickly, but I did see that he had a brief marriage to a cabaret dancer. Figures.

  4. @ Neo > “way too often the result, although well-intentioned, is a dizzying confusion that causes the viewer to lose sight of the ballet itself as a whole”

    So true, and not just of ballet filming: any dance genre suffers from cuts made just to have variety (which I think most of them are, maybe there is a quote of close-up to distance) and not for any artistic consideration of the movements.
    IIRC Fred Astaire insisted that his performances be filmed totally from a full-view, no close-ups.
    It’s the feet we want to see, not the face!

  5. J. Swift, Gulliver’s Travels, Part II. A Voyage to Brobdingnag, chpt. 1:

    The nurse, to quiet her babe, made use of a rattle which was a kind of hollow vessel filled with great stones, and fastened by a cable to the child’s waist: but all in vain; so that she was forced to apply the last remedy by giving it suck. I must confess no object ever disgusted me so much as the sight of her monstrous breast, which I cannot tell what to compare with, so as to give the curious reader an idea of its bulk, shape, and colour. It stood prominent six feet, and could not be less than sixteen in circumference. The nipple was about half the bigness of my head, and the hue both of that and the dug, so varied with spots, pimples, and freckles, that nothing could appear more nauseous: for I had a near sight of her, she sitting down, the more conveniently to give suck, and I standing on the table. This made me reflect upon the fair skins of our English ladies, who appear so beautiful to us, only because they are of our own size, and their defects not to be seen but through a magnifying glass; where we find by experiment that the smoothest and whitest skins look rough, and coarse, and ill-coloured.

    I remember when I was at Lilliput, the complexion of those diminutive people appeared to me the fairest in the world; and talking upon this subject with a person of learning there, who was an intimate friend of mine, he said that my face appeared much fairer and smoother when he looked on me from the ground, than it did upon a nearer view, when I took him up in my hand, and brought him close, which he confessed was at first a very shocking sight.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/829/829-h/829-h.htm#part02

  6. 1. Cinematography and videography are also arts with their own conventions and styles.

    2. Videography in particular has been greatly impacted by advances in technology.

    In 1973:
    – Cameras were big and clunky. It took a lot of planning, equipment, and effort to move them smoothly.
    – Zoom lenses were more expensive and limited.
    – Video still required high levels of carefully planned lighting.
    – Television sets and video formats were small and low-resolution.
    – The nature and economics of film and video production emphasized – and still does – “coverage” from many angles, and (re)cutting the raw footage to create multiple salable/promotional products in many lengths, for different audiences.

    Because of all this, and obvious historical kinship – video was still largely using the language of film in 1973… but format and resolution issues meant none of the panoramic wide-screen compositional devices could be used. Look at how blurry the full-stage shots are in 1973. You can hardly make out the arm positions of the opening. Would you watch that for a half hour? That’s the reason for some of the cuts.

    In the clip from 2011 the videographer has largely been freed from all those limitations. Look how appealing the full-stage shots are. See how much is achieved with simple zoom and pan shots – both easily achieved with an on-camera lens, and by pivoting a light, battery-powered camera – without dollying a heavy, mains-fed camera on tracks.

    And unlike news coverage, the camera operator can plan those subtle reframings to match the choreography (although at a few points the camera lags the action and misses a soloist’s entry).

    A videographer in the 2020s could avail themselves of hand-held stabilizing rigs and other equipment that would let them walk the camera around the hall, or raise it above eye level, to subtly vary the perspective on the ensemble shots (for example, the slightly oblique overhead opening shot of the 1973 clip is actually more effective in revealing the ensemble pose than the head-on front shot of the stage). And the extreme reduction in costs would allow multiple cameras to be running.

  7. In the fall of 1961, I got the lead in the all-school play. How time flies. Ever since then, I have not been able to get “in” to a stage performance, even an old musical like South Pacific with its multitudes of performers. I am always looking for stage business.
    While it was a big deal in my life, I sometimes wish….

    Wonder if the same is true for dancers watching dance. Or do they not need to be taken away by a performance?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>