To begin with, let me first say for the record that I understand that this film was made with the non-Ballet-going public in mind, much as 'E.R.' is made for the non-medical public. This may explain how so many people I have spoken to really loved this film. I, however, must protest. As a professional dancer for many years and, now, a choreographer and director of Ballet, I can not add my voice to the choir of approval that this film has received. Indeed, I have found the production, from front to back with rare exception, to be an ineffectual copy of a classic ballet. The Horror that is Macauly Culkin (who was obviouly cast to bring the film "star-power" rather than talent) aside, the wrongs against Ballet abound aplenty in this film. The choreography is tipical Latter Balanchine (for the un-trained; make it fast, make it sharp and remove any and all elements of Emotion, the core of dance, in favor of a technicality that will highlight the flaws of even the best dancers), the score (considered by many to be their favorite Tchaikovsky piece) is so badly edited and re-arranged that I doubt if the composer would regognize it, leading to the re-arrangement of the staging into a non-linear hodge-podge of dances that tells no deffinite story, but simply ambles through the remains of a once-great narrative and the camera work, while professional and clean, is more distracting than helpful, always cutting away at inopportune moments in favor of another vantage point. One of the wonderful things about watching ballet on tape is being able to see a variation continualy without edits, there-by showing our hero or heroine actually completing a difficult step or combonation, there-by showing off their talent. When one cuts away from a dancer after three fuete turns and then shows them from another angle doing another three fuetes, how are we, as the viewers, to know if the dancer completed all six in one attempt or did she simply do three and WE saw them twice? With the continuity cut from the dancing, much of the magic of ballet (&/or dance in general) gets lost in the mix. And then, there is the Culkin child. Now, I understand that Young Mr. Culkin is rumored to have grown into a very respectable and nice young man. And I also understand (although reports are sketchy) that he received instruction from the School of American Ballet (SAB), the accademy arm of the New York City Ballet (NYCB), for a short time. But does this really qualify him to play the Nutcracker? His obviouly lack of balletic talent or grace and the ham-handed choreography imposed on the child makes his scenes painful to watch and an embarrassment to not only Mr Culkin and the NYCB, but to the entire dancing world. Would it have not made better sense to have cast an actual dancer in the role and let the art form speak for itself rather than trying to "glam" it up with a familar face?
The one shining moment in other-wise waste of video tape is the Soldier Doll Variation performed in the first act Party Scene. Brilliant and incredible!
Needless to say, however, I was disappointed the first time I saw this film and continue to be so now, years later. If you are interested in seeing a quality production of "the Nutcracker", I would like to recomend either the classical and technically perfect Royal Ballet's version or the more visially oppulant Pacific Northwest Ballet's production, both available on video.
