Ballet 422 (2014)

That was an excellent one.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Great dancers deserve to be filmed by a competent director and crew. Unfortunately, this did not happen in "Ballet 422." I have had the good fortune to have seen hundreds of live performances; have watched hundreds more on TV, laserdiscs, and DVD; and have myself filmed over a hundred ballet performances. I therefore know a little about both the art of ballet, and the techniques for recording it.(P.S., I am also married to a ballet dancer.) What I have found over the past forty years is that there are no right ways to film a ballet, or a documentary about ballet, but there sure are a lot of wrong ways.This film seems to be an exercise in finding every possible wrong way to photograph dancers. Here are some examples: * The camera person seems to have an aversion to feet. Virtually every shot cuts off the dancers' feet and lower torsos, and by tilting the camera to far upwards, gives us vast, pointless shots of the ceiling.* I don't think I have ever seen an extended dancing scene in which the dancer is shown out of frame, with her arms occasionally appearing in the shot, only to disappear again. I am all for artistic shots, but if you're going to take a chance at doing something different, MAKE IT WORK!! This was just stupid and most definitely did not work.* Whoever edited this has no sense of continuity. They also don't understand when to begin and end a shot. This movie could be used in an editing class to show exactly what NOT to do when editing.* The lighting is awful. Yes, I know it is a documentary, and much of it is shot with available light. However, I also know that many of the shots required setup and WERE lit, or at least some attempt was made at lighting.* The ending shots, where the movies should come together is a completely pointless series of juxtapositions that make absolutely no sense.I don't think I have ever seen such an incompetent production, and this includes some high school films done by first-year students.The only reason I give it three stars instead of one is that the solo dancing is absolutely wonderful (although the group dancing is pretty sloppy and lacks coordination).So, if you do rent this, make sure you have a fast forward that works, and just watch the dancing and skip all the pointless and useless and incompetent footage that adds nothing but bloated, pointless time.Jody Lee Lipes (the director and main camera person) should not ever again be allowed anywhere near a camera, not even the one in his cellphone.

As an ex - professional ballet dancer I found this an interesting piece to watch . I was excited to watch a "dance film" but found that It focuses greatly upon rehearsal and the choreographer yet sadly lacks any entertainment value. Dance, is about the artistic representation of life , love , passion, however this film has none. The part where the choreographer is asked to thank the orchestra is particularly cognisant of how narcissistic dancers can be . I would encourage young dancers to watch it to realise that this is again sadly actually what being a professional ballet dancer is all about. There are better things to do with your life .

This was pretty disappointing. There is just not enough dance and too much filler (or cinema verite) as in:Justin Peck (choreographer) walking down empty corridorsthe orchestra being conductedtoo much on costume assemblage (there is footage of a washing machine)NYC subway stationsThere is not much on the inspiration for the dance and the choreography; there is some perspiration (some short dancing scenes), but very little on the creative process. It's like seeing architects and engineers walking and talking, but never seeing the finished product(the building - in this case the dance).For dancers only. Not for the audience. I pressed fast forward several times. Badly assembled and edited.

Lipes, the director, comes through as Wiseman's disciple; this may seem obvious. Yet some choices, and especially something everyone notices, that is the absence of talking heads, something that Wiseman obliquely put in his Opera Garnier doc, make Lipes come through as more demanding through Ballet 422's elisions.Peck, a corps de ballet speck in the illustrious New York City Ballet, gets a commission for a brand new choreography put to music of his own choice (why in the beginning we are only informed that this is music "from 1935" and not its title or composer, is a sour irony when the end comes)in just two months.So, the documentary unrolls in a drama-less manner, since the corps de ballet, its top three dancers, the costume designer, the pianist - all pros included, are professional enough to pull it through just in time, with no bursts of tension.I wondered by the time Paz de la Jolla, the choreographed piece, came to its premiere in the film, why the director decided then to put on a show, though wonderfully edited, of the choreographer's first steps and trying inspirations, to the more collaborative efforts and mounting - costumes! lights! - spectacle, for just some quick, somehow unredeemed glances.And this is the sobering truth: after the premiere, the bows and the flowers, the quick, chill thrill and the relief all was well, Peck goes backstage to change into his costume for the next piece in the program, now as a low in the NYCB's ranks corps dancer. The film concludes with a long take of a panoramic view of the MET where all that took place, with an almost cruelly extended portion of the next piece's music; and here the irony is manifold: Shostakovich's Piano Concerto no 2, whose andante we hear, was at once one of his most popular pieces, and one discarded as unusually cheerful and easy, even by himself in a deprecating manner, just to preempt any anti-proletariat criticisms.How can one, after the stress of creation and premiere, slip into the shoes of a serial, by the numbers - now the title shines in a new light - dancer just right afterwards? This is a tough world, yes. But the film also passes, for its seeming genre, subtly and surprisingly an argument for the working classes that is itself sobering, even grim, yet ultimately artistic.