I'm one of those people who think classical ballet is dull, dull, dull. It's not the music. I never get tired of listening to Tchaikovsky's ballet scores - `The Nutcracker' is something I can enjoy in any mood - and I have different kinds of fondnesses for Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Delibes, Khachaturyan, et al. But what's the deal with the dancing? If storytelling is the point, then the dance is a remarkably inefficient means to that end; if some kind of pure expressionism, it's too earthbound and formalised. I'd much rather watch an orchestra.
In any event, transferring classical ballet to the cinema screen is a daft idea. (Not that I have a quarrel with a film ABOUT classical ballet - that's a different thing altogether.) It's like filming stage productions of Shakespeare. Shakespeare can survive, intact, in the cinema; but only if one throws out the whole apparatus of the theatre and starts thinking of the cinema screen. Tchaikovsky's ballet music, too, can work on the screen. For proof look no further than the Nutcracker sections of `Fantasia', which are so good I think they're the kind of thing the music was REALLY meant to accompany, all along.
`Nutcracker' looks at first as if it will be a cinematic treatment of the score, with no connection to stage-bound dancing - but this hope is dashed within the first quarter hour or so. The second act in particular is just a stage presentation with extra-lavish effects. But then, unless one is prepared to be REALLY radical (the way Disney was), what else is there to do? The other thing that dooms the project is the disjointed nature of the narrative behind Tchaikovsky's ballet, the second act being just a succession of dances without a plot. Tchaikovsky had to push himself to wring any decent music out of the material.
I'm not being hard on the dancers, the director, or anyone: I think they've done a first-class job, given the impossible task they've set themselves. But when I saw `Nutcracker' I'd already seen `Fantasia'. Nothing will now convince me that a screen version of classical ballet is a good idea.
In any event, transferring classical ballet to the cinema screen is a daft idea. (Not that I have a quarrel with a film ABOUT classical ballet - that's a different thing altogether.) It's like filming stage productions of Shakespeare. Shakespeare can survive, intact, in the cinema; but only if one throws out the whole apparatus of the theatre and starts thinking of the cinema screen. Tchaikovsky's ballet music, too, can work on the screen. For proof look no further than the Nutcracker sections of `Fantasia', which are so good I think they're the kind of thing the music was REALLY meant to accompany, all along.
`Nutcracker' looks at first as if it will be a cinematic treatment of the score, with no connection to stage-bound dancing - but this hope is dashed within the first quarter hour or so. The second act in particular is just a stage presentation with extra-lavish effects. But then, unless one is prepared to be REALLY radical (the way Disney was), what else is there to do? The other thing that dooms the project is the disjointed nature of the narrative behind Tchaikovsky's ballet, the second act being just a succession of dances without a plot. Tchaikovsky had to push himself to wring any decent music out of the material.
I'm not being hard on the dancers, the director, or anyone: I think they've done a first-class job, given the impossible task they've set themselves. But when I saw `Nutcracker' I'd already seen `Fantasia'. Nothing will now convince me that a screen version of classical ballet is a good idea.