Serenade: how to film ballet
Or how not to film ballet.
I admit it’s a very difficult task. Film flattens a three-dimensional highly spatial art into two dimensions of flatness. Dance’s impact can only really be made in space, which allows for perspective and weight. But without film dance is completely ephemeral. I have memories of transcendent performances, but I’m happy to have films – however inferior – to look at as well. For me, they spark memories. For those who didn’t see the originals, they give at least a glimpse of some of the greatness.
If a pas de deux – a dance for two people, a man and a woman – is being filmed, the task is somewhat easier. The camera can come in fairly close and it’s an approximation of the shapes the performance made in space, and the viewer can also see some facial expressions. Too close offers too much of the strain, but too far depersonalizes and threatens to turn the dancers into featureless dolls.
However, for an ensemble work, the challenge is much greater. The only way to see the patterns is to position the camera quite far away, as though the viewer is seated in the mezzanine or even balcony. But then the personalities and expressions are somewhat lost. So most filmmakers or videographers cut back and forth from far view to medium view to closeup, depending on what’s happening with the action. But making those choices is not easy and 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 – which, after all, is the way it’s meant to be viewed.
Here’s a frustrating example. It features one of my very favorite ballets: Balanchine’s “Serenade,” which is a masterpiece. The music is Tchaikovsky’s exceptionally lovely “Serenade For Strings.” The performance is apparently from 1973 although the film is dated 1977, it’s Balanchine’s own New York City Ballet, and I’m very familiar with all the soloists. But even though I know and love the ballet, the camerawork is dizzying and disorienting. No sooner do you get an idea of what’s happening than it cuts to something else:
Here’s a video from a 2011 production by the Sacramento Ballet, a lesser although very good company. I think the director strikes a better compromise and most of the time you can see both the dancers and the shapes the group makes onstage, so important for this particular ballet:
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.
Yes you can get at best a sample of the best dancers moves but not a full representation on the ensemble
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.
@ 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!
Maybe a use case for 3D video capture, watchable thru VR display devices?
J. Swift, Gulliver’s Travels, Part II. A Voyage to Brobdingnag, chpt. 1:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/829/829-h/829-h.htm#part02