I have now seen three incredible ballet films, and I am under the impression that these are not only the three best, but the only ones worth seeking out.
One is "Red Shoes" which does a terrific job in merging cinema and dance, both in the story and how the camera moves. Another, the very best of the three is the Maddin "Dracula," sublime, seductive, exhausting. And this. British, Canadian, Australian.
This is by far the most technically brilliant, honest, risky of the three. It is the one around which lives revolve. It is historically unique and important quite apart from being fantastic.
But as a film it is a bit maddening. This is the restored version I am commenting on here and the restored state is distractingly uneven. What a shame. But you can largely ignore that after the first viewing, the poor sound effects, the sometimes muddy focus, the wildly uneven color.
There's another distraction, though. This was danced by Nureyev, but also staged, choreographed and directed by him. And he just doesn't understand the camera. Rather he understands it poorly as a matter of an integrated movement of the eye, because there are some segments where he leaves the stage and enters a state where the composition could only be seen by a moving camera.
Only once is the lighting cinematically effective, before he and his lover meet the gypsies. The rest of the time it is stage lighting. As many times as we have a brilliant flash of cinematic genius we have doltish decisions.
Well, never mind, excepting the first scene the overall effect is transporting, quite worthy of your investing a part of your soul. I only wish I had seen it as a disembodied sprite in the not then completed opera house.
You will fall in love. You will. Yes.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
