john_meyer 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.

grumpy_otter Based on the description, I thought I would love this documentary, since I love ballet. Yet by the end, I didn't even like it. I will clarify that the flaws in this are not those of the film's participants, who seemed like hard-working and dedicated people, but of the director. The director seems to have wandered into the creation of a ballet halfway through and turned on a camera, with no vision of the point that should be made or the tale that should be told. I give it 3 out of 10 for the few scenes of dancing, which were very good. Watching these young bodies perform difficult movements with a seemingly effortless ease was amazing, but that is kind of the point of ballet--to make the difficult appear easy. All of the dancers were very skilled in that aspect, and the focus of the film, the young dancer and choreographer Justin Peck, seemed like a charming and talented young man. So that was the good; now on to the bad. The film is described as "From first rehearsal to world premiere, Ballet 422 takes us backstage at New York City Ballet as emerging choreographer Justin Peck crafts a new work." But that's a lie--the first time we see the dancers working on the ballet they have already learned the steps, so it's not the first rehearsal. As I said before, we join the process halfway through. Peck's process or inspiration is not mentioned or described at all--I had to google to find out that the ballet was inspired by California beaches. So that explains the costumes--sort of bathing suits. Watching the costume-design portions of the film was actually pretty interesting--or it WOULD have been if we had any idea what they were going for. Instead we just see them talking about fabric and design without any idea of what mood or tone they are trying to evoke. Here is what would have made a great film. Start with Peck learning he will be choreographing a new ballet for the company. For a lower-ranking member of the company, this is a great honor and I imagine he would have been excited about it. Let Peck tell us what his vision is and what he wants to accomplish. Answer these questions: How did you choose the music? What characteristics are you looking for in your dancers? What is the process of choosing dancers? What will the name of the ballet be? Does the ballet have a story or is it more of a mood piece? If it has a story, what is the story? What are the names of the dancers you have chosen? What parts will they play? After those questions are answered, the film could show us how Peck teaches the steps to the dancers. Did he have the whole thing planned ahead, or were changes made during the rehearsal process? Then, edit out of the film all of the parts showing Peck walking around, or sitting and listening, or looking at walls. I think that would have cut the length by about 30 minutes, so fill in with more dancing. Those changes might have made this into a good film. I should add that people unfamiliar with ballet may be confused by a few things--it would have been nice if the director had bothered to explain some of the things that were happening. When I walk out of a documentary, I want to feel that I have learned something. At the end of this, I felt like I had just watched some stuff. It was mostly tedious, with a few interesting bits here and there. I hope Peck and the lovely dancers in this mess will have successful careers, and I hope the director will take some lessons in how to tell an effective story.

Dunham16 Many successful Hollywood movies follow the storyline of how a new ballet is prepared. Most have subplots based on the motives and after hours experiences of ballet company members. This film brilliantly ignores the sub plots to focus on the internal workings of the much admired New York City ballet at Lincoln Center's David Koch theater. Every camera angle and every bit of dialogue is fascinating to balletomanes though may be an unfamiliar experience to those who perhaps don't care for the performing arts or aren't enthused about ballet. We get intimate looks at the creative process, the way the corps de ballet prepares new choreography and the inner workings of a major ballet company with 91 dancers. The revelation seems the way the dancers and the house staff seem to direct in committee consensus without line boss artistic management as is traditional in a ballet company once run with an iron hand by George Balanchine and then by Peter Martins.The surprise expose is company ballet performance tweaked by many hands working to guess performer plus house staff consensus at the heart of why some fans adore NYCB and why some fans avoid its surface sameness week after week and year after year.

dbborroughs A look at the creation of a new dance (number 422) for the New York City Ballet by choreographer and dancer Jonathan Peck. We watch as Peck goes from commission through creation to performance.How much you like the nuts and bolts of dance will determine how much you like the film. Personally I'm not a ballet fan so much of the creation segments bored me. I had no idea what they were talking about and watching some things over and over again wore on me.At the same time seeing the completed piece was magical as was the kicker of seeing how Peck had to create the dance while at the same time maintaining his training as a dancer for the Ballet- his piece premieres as part of an evening of dance and he then had to race to get into costume to dance.I know many dance fans who saw this, like I did at Tribeca, who loved it. I know just as many people like me who liked bits.Worth a shot for the dance fans out there, all others its up to you.