A conversation with Elena Glurjidze

Today I bring to you a very very special conversation with Elena Glurjidze, Senior Principle Dancer of UK's English National Ballet. I was fortunate enough to get in contact with this amazing woman and she was kind enough to answer my many many questions. A very special thank you to this incredible artist and I hope you all enjoy this post. 

*~*~*

1) What happens in a day in the life of ballerina, Elena Glurjidze?

 Life of a ballerina differs, just the way any other human being's. However, my day starts with my son and husband, preparing my son to school, taking him for 8:30 am pick up by school bus. Once we do this my husband and I have 30 minutes in South Ken cafe to have a cup of coffee, discuss what we are doing later same day, catch up on the day before and go to work.
For me working day starts at 10:30 with classes and after depending on the rehearsal schedule we may have up to three rehearsals a day up until 7pm. If we have a performance it could go all the way up to 10-11pm. So, my day is quite long and demanding.

2) What part of your work do you enjoy most - the rehearsal or the performance (and why)?
 Some rehearsals are just as demanding as performances and you have a chance to make things better or change. Yet, the feeling of a full audience always brings more adrenaline, feeling of responsibility, so enjoyment of performances have this special feeling of trepidation. But, this trepidation ends the second you enter the stage.

3) You started ballet when you were 7 - was it a conscious decision you made or did your parents enrol you in dance classes?
 It was and has been almost the only decision I took completely against my parents. To join the ballet school at the age of 7 was not so difficult as lots of other girls want to be ballerinas and parents are often happy to see their children be fit, well co-ordinated and musical. However, when I decided at the age of 12, I wanted to study ballet in St Petersburg, alone, at boarding school, my parents took it very seriously. Their little girl, who was always surrounded and walked to and from school was to live on her own thousands of miles away in a very big city. That was hard for them, but my determination did somehow work and they agreed. It was the first time I had ever insisted on something and had no reservations despite the pain and fear I had to go through.

4) What was one of the most important lessons you learnt at ballet school?
The more your work, the better you get and it is not always others who should judge you, but you can trust your inner voice.

5) Why is Giselle your favorite role to dance?
I think Giselle has a very touching story behind it, it requires sensitivity and purity of expression. This has an impact on how I feel the main part and step into this role. 
I also love portraying Manon, which I also enjoy due to its requirement to apply dramatic touch.

6) Has there ever been a least favorite role to dance in your career?- a role that you didn't enjoy, or found more challenging than usual?
 My main influence and teacher Lubov Kunakova used to say that there are no minor roles, there are small time dancers. So, I would change it a little bit and say that there are no least favorite roles or parts. Some are more demanding, others are less so, but I feel responsible for making viewers forget this part and enjoy.

7) The science of fitness and dance continues to expand and develop - dancers are now cross-training whether it be pilates or yoga. Do you do anything else other than just your daily workload of dancing?
I am studying to become a professional ballet teacher, so I very much doubt I will follow on the yoga or pilates path. Although, yes, quite a lot of dancers go this way.

8) What is your favorite thing to do on your time off?
My favorite time off is spending it with my family, I have a 6 year old son and a very busy husband, so any minute counts for an hour in our household and we try to use it well.

9) Do you have a favorite venue where you have performed?
I like the Coliseum, Royal Albert Hall - you name it.

10) and finally...What is your advice to young, aspiring dancers?

To young ones I would say:
1. Never think that you know it all there is always room to improve and learn. There is always room to feel nuances which were not uncovered before.
2. Never underestimate the strength of determination, hence
3. Work hard.

Le Parc

My first encounter with Angelin Preljocaj's Le Parc was on YouTube. I saw footage of a rehearsal between Aurelie Dupont and Manuel Legris of the Paris Opera Ballet - which was set to Mozart's unforgettable romantic adage (used in many films and most recently The New World, by Terrence Malick) Piano Concerto No.23 in A. The rehearsal footage had a direct link to the pas de deux's performance footage which I was quick to check out - a short 2minute segment from the full 7minute sequence. I was enraptured. Never had I seen such an intimate and naked dance between a man and a woman. It was so confronting in its passion, romance and sex. Aurelie was incredibly beautiful despite being stripped bare of any stage make-up, hair out and dishevelled with just a loose shirt covering her body. The choreography focused on movements centred around the head, shoulders and torso signifying what I interpreted it to be two lovers abandoning themselves to one-another. 

Following that short snippet I was eager to find more footage of the ballet but unfortunately YouTube couldn't satisfy me - so I was beyond stoked when I found the DVD for sale online. Three weeks later (as it had to be ordered from France) it was in my mailbox!

The dancers in this performance were Isabelle Guerin and Laurent Hilaire, who were superb. Le Parc (The Park) is set in 3-acts which span a duration of 90minutes. It is a work that was inspired from 17th and 18th century French art and literature. Angelin Preljocaj wanted to present his interpretation of "the games of love" drawing on works such as La Princesse de Cléves and the calculating intrigues of Choderlos de Laclos' Liaisons Dangereuses. His set was simple - industrialized version of what is supposed to be a garden with 4 key "gardeners" who ear-mark each act and who later deliver Isabelle to her lover at the end. Yes, that pas de deux happened at the very end of the ballet and how it makes sense now. Throughout the ballet it is just a build up to that point. 

I did spend an awful long time debating the sexes during the ballet. I don't know if this is what Angelin intended, but it is clear this ballet means more than just "how to get to love". At the beginning of the ballet, there are women dressed in 17th century men's attire dancing on the opposite side of the men. For a while I thought...oh I see, Angelin is trying to show the taboo nature of homosexuality through having women dressed as boys. So I spent nearly the entire 90minutes debating, are the women dressed as boys playing boys and these men are in fact enraptured by boys....who later don female court-dresses. Or....is it just a simple fact that women are dressed as boys in the beginning sequence but are actually women for the remainder of the ballet? Another interpretation, which through some research I had come across was that the whole point in having the women in the first dance sequence dressed in men's clothes was to highlight the fact that women are just as responsible for "calling the shots in a relationship" as do men. Interesting - I had not thought of that.

Needless to say, it was a riot. The second act was a representation of the games girls and boys play when they are courting each other - the typical "hard to get" notion is displayed. I thought it was very clever. Whilst, at the beginning of the third act, Isabelle is swooned between the four gardeners in a dance where she performs entirely with her eyes closed and at the mercy of her handlers (she is represented as sleeping and the gardeners controlling her dream-state). This was one of the many highlights for me, of this ballet. It was a very smart dance and really called on the female to abandon herself to her partners as they carried her across each movement.

Importantly however, the scenes are always punctuated by the two main lovers and throughout the ballet their relationship is shown to develop - to the obvious finalé where the sexual tension is so incredible that when they finally do perform that pas de deux it is almost akin to an orgasmic release. You are constantly reminded of their journey.

Needless to say, it was worth the ridiculous amount I paid for - which I won't disclose here....it almost deserves a slap on the wrist - but it's a ballet that you won't find in any typical retail shop in Australia (therefore I'm so stoked to own a copy). If you want it - you have to order it. One day I would love to see this performed live only by the Paris Opera Ballet. The Paris Opera's capacity to dive into innovative and sometimes quite brave works is why I love it so much and cements this company as my all-time favourite ballet company in the world.

*~*~*

Check it out for yourself:


Aurelie Dupont & Manuel Legris performing pas de deux from Le Parc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUaMJ_xGK9o 


Isabelle Guerin & Laurent Hilaire performing Le Parc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORI_z-Xi9js

One to watch

I was completely besotted by this lady when she captured my attention in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland earlier this year. Mia Wasikowska was quickly touted as one to watch in my books. This Canberra-native (yes an Aussie) and ex-ballet dancer delivered a very understated yet spot-on performance as the young Alice. She was completely enamouring on screen. True, she divided critics and audiences by her portrayal. Some thought her too plain, too boring without much depth. I found her to be very fine and quite the ingenue. As soon as I got back from the cinemas from Tim Burton's fantasy wild-ride (this was the first film I saw in 3D and I literally almost wet my pants it was that exciting), I jumped online to check out Mia's stats. She has quite a small credit to her name but I believe this young debutante in Hollywood is going to make it big. 

Her next film due for release next year in the US, Restless looks like it could be a winner. The trailer outlines a peculiar story about a girl who meets a boy at funerals, who turns out to be herself, a terminally ill patient. The boy in question sees a dead kamikaze pilot. So it's interesting and quirky, but it has undertones of a very serious subject matter. The director, Gus Van Sant is responsible for the likes of To Die For, Good Will Hunting and Milk. So this will prove to be quite an intriguing film, which I'm already beginning to get excited for - even though there is no release date for Australia listed as of yet!!! I hold my breath in anticipation. This role has potential to elevate Mia's status as a serious actress.

Jane Eyre has a release date in the US touted for March and should also hopefully be another benchmark for the young Mia. Mia will be playing the title role and the film will be directed by Cary Fukunaga who has produced various independent films and documentaries. 

So high hopes, high hopes - I do hope this little (albeit in real life she's quite tall) Aussie makes it big!!!! I'll be in her corner egging her on!

Is this beautiful or is it teetering on the edge of contortionism?

Alina Somova, Russian Ballerina

Russian superstar Alina Somova has constantly divided critics. People either love her hyper-flexibility or they are turned off by it.

For me...watching her as a graduate and beginning her career in the Mariinsky she always made me nervous. I felt she was too flexible and had too much range in motion. Her pirouettes frightened me as I felt there wasn't enough control. 

Now however, she seems to be mastering her body - her tool. She is less "nerve-racking" to watch and seems to ease into each step with a kind of fluidity I have not seen from her before.

So....is ballet becoming a contortionist act?-or can hyper-extensive flexibility still be considered artistic???

Sylvie Guillem was first to divide modern day critics - and I still believe she is still the best at achieving the right balance between what is artistic and what is a movement of showmanship. That aspect of ballet is becoming blurred with some dancers forgetting the artistic line and compromising that by throwing their legs up whilly nilly.

So with young Alina setting the new standard (albeit by an inch or so) will we be seeing dancers in 10 years time (or less) having their devélopés zip past their heads?!

Surely there has to be a stopping point - where do you draw the line in aesthetics and artistry???- not to mention, how much is the human body capable of before it snaps in half??? I think it's something that may very soon need to be addressed in the ballet world...

Alina's hyper-extended Grand Jeté is too vulgar for my liking and is not at all artistic...

Influences

It's funny how as you grow up you seem to be drawn to many different influences. For me I had many different women that I looked up to, or admired. I was fortunate to have role models to look up to around me, (as mentioned in a previous interview post with my ballet role model, Rebecca Martin) but there were also those in celluloid that influenced me greatly. Probably should mention that it wasn't just the female sex that influenced me as I grew up to become a woman, but there were many men that also influenced me...but for the purpose of this post - I present a pictorial representation of those female role models I looked up to (and sometimes still do admire and emulate....as well as a brief summary of why) as I grew up. These are just a collection of famous ladies who through their presence in popular culture helped define parts of myself as I developed.

Madonna

The one and only material girl. I was still in my mother's womb when she would play songs from this pop icon's various albums. I grew up listening to "True Blue", "Papa don't preach" and "La Isla Bonita". By the time I was 13 I was avidly following this musical chameleon - purchasing each new album and not just singing along to her tunes but emulating her style, wishing I could be blonde and embracing how sexually open she was. She embodied the confidence that I wanted. She still is, no matter how old she is, the ultimate female powerhouse in my eyes - what she wants, she gets - if not through demand, but through sheer grit and determination.

Audrey Hepburn

Someone who will forever influence me and someone who I consider to be the most beautiful woman of all time. She is timeless. Her elegance, grace and beauty is something unparalleled. I loved watching her in "Sabrina" and I adored "Breakfast at Tiffany's". Audrey is what I view as a fashion icon and someone to be emulated. I used to (and still do) wish I could be as fashionable as this luminous beauty.

Sylvie Guillem

The moment I saw my first footage of this creature I was completely smitten and when I learned about her intelligence, her independence and her drive to succeed I knew, that this was the kind of woman and exactly the kind of ballerina I wanted to be. Throughout my teenage years (13-19) Sylvie Guillem was the embodiment of how a ballerina should be. I watched her performances before I would go to the theatre and perform myself. She was source for inspiration and her work ethic was something that continued to motivate me. She is someone who is incredibly gifted, physically....but recognised, that without determination, drive and a strong work ethic, a gift was not enough to stand alone and deliver what was required of a modern ballerina. This woman has moved on to contemporary dance and well into her 40's still commands the stage. She is God in my eyes - she still is and will forever be. 

Uma Thurman

For a while when I was 14, I was convinced Uma Thurman was the most beautiful woman in the world. I remember a Lancome advert for the perfume, Miracle. I was completely in awe. Uma influenced the way I viewed luxury goods. She was the one who opened my eyes to how luxurious and wonderful fragrance is. Before, I was spoilt with little tester bottles of perfumes that I knew nothing about nor cared to appreciate their value. Suddenly, when I was a little older and a bit more aware to how the world of fashion functions and in particular luxury items - I suddenly realised how stupid I was as a kid. Spraying bottles of my mother's Christian Dior willy nilly. Uma's Miracle campaign made me appreciate fragrance and made me want to be that glamorous lady with that Lancome, or that Chanel, or that Christian Dior...

Margot Fonteyn

It wasn't so much her dancing that influenced me. It was the fact that she didn't have bendy feet, she wasn't tall and she didn't have flat turn out. Structurally, if she auditioned for a job in the ballet world today...she would be unemployable. It's just that ballet has become so physically and aesthetically defined that perfection is so very very important. Margot was an artist. That is what appealed to me. Her eyes. Her interpretation of the music. Her vibrancy on stage. What I loved about Margot was that she wasn't perfect and she appealed to me greatly. Her legs didn't zip past her ears and she relied heavily on her artistry to become the phenomenon she was (and to a degree still is). Margot made me secure in myself as a dancer that it was possible to achieve things through hard work - even if you weren't the most flexible dancer. 

Angelina Jolie

When I was 16 I experienced my first "break-up" and boy did that ever devastate me. It was excruciating and I refuse to experience that same awful feeling of rejection ever again!!!! It was around the time that Angelina Jolie was jumping around as Lara Croft and really pushing the powerful and dominant, fit image of a woman. I took to her straight away. Suddenly boys didn't matter any more. I ran every day, did push-ups and tried to exude that same confidence, care-free power that Ms. Jolie emulated. Angie influenced and helped me through a difficult stage of being a teenager (for me) and helped me discover the dominant side of myself.

Winona Ryder

Saying that I wanted her hair cut is probably not sufficient enough. Winona wasn't just a hair-do icon for me. Her impish looks were appealing and as a kid, growing into a teenager I loved all of Winnie's films and I wanted to be an actress just like her. Yes I did go through a stage where I wanted to be in films.....but no....I think my lack of capacity to learn lines would pose a problem in that industry....hehehe. Winona epitomised the girl-next-door to me. I wanted to smoke like she did in "Reality Bites" (and boy did I end up doing that.....maybe too much in fact.....I can now say I've given up that evil habit for good), I wanted to fall in love like she did in "Little Women" and  wanted to be that cool quirky teenager that she portrayed in "Beetlejuice". Yep...I admired Winnie for a very long time - up until she shoplifted....and that changed everything....but before, in the 90's - she was the woman I wanted to be, beautiful, smart and the fact she was short and petite appealed to me - because I was short and well yes....I haven't grown much since then so I'm still short!

Nicole Kidman

Last but not least, this Australian stunner. It was around the time she did "Moulin Rouge" and that advert for Chanel which I was completely enraptured by Nicole. Her divorce from Tom Cruise displayed how human she was and I remember watching an interview she participated in for 60Minutes where she was disarming and so real. I wanted to somehow grow an extra 50cm and be this tall, ethereal woman. Nicole influenced what films I watched (for a while), what clothes I bought, how I spoke and what I considered to be "pretty" for a girl. When I found out she ran 20miles a day I quickly calculated how far that would be in km and was astounded that she also super fit and super healthy. So I tried to keep her in mind whenever I'd venture out on a run. Suddenly I decided I wanted to stay out of the sun as much as possible. I would never achieve that royalty pale skin, but I was trying at least. Red hair was appealing and so was blonde. Yes I was blonde for a couple of years (when I was 20/21 - but that wasn't just Nicole's influence....it had to be a bit of Madonna thrown in there too). I will never forget that feeling I had when I watched the Chanel advertisement for the first time. It was created by Baz Luhrman and Karl Lagerfeld supplied the couture. The awe. It was truly incredible. It literally took my breath away. I had never been so astounded by something so incredibly stunning in my life. I remember that I wanted to be like that - I wanted to stop a room with an entrance (one day at an event) like Nic did. She was just so elegant. 

The three degrees of Romantic-Comedy

Rom-coms are a funny genre. Sometimes they can be really good, but more often than not they end up being cheesy and cliché....bordering on nauseating. I've seen some great rom-coms but I've seen a lot of terrible ones. I did a bit of a "trailer-scan" this evening....of rom-coms....that are to be released in the next few months. The three I've selected pretty much rate from potential-for-disaster, to "okay but something was missing", to a very good-achieved-warm-fuzzy-feeling-and-massive-smile-on-face. 

Bill Nighy was the perfect loose-canon for this brilliant love-fest

Winona & Ethan made a great bohemian couple

I think there is a certain formula that determines a successful rom-com (okay - romantic comedy for you novices). It obviously involves the right couple - you need two key actors who spark that perfect chemistry, where you can actually feel those warm-fuzzy-butterflies in your tummy when they meet and fall in love (Winona Ryder and Ethan Hawke in the 90's classic Reality Bites rings a bell). It also involves a witty sense of humour, which is quick and not too dirty - something that isn't predictable (think Hugh Grant's flat mate posing in his jocks at the front doorstep to a flurry of journalists and paparazzi in Notting Hill). I think to cap off that formula you need the right setting and the right storyline - a drama or conflict that isn't overly out there, but is relate-able, something where you could see yourself in. A love-triangle that is not entirely predictable often is good to "mix things up". With all the predictable elements you need a balance of those that are unpredictable. It keeps things cool and "un-cliché". Rom-coms that I think have this formula and were thus successful (and so they became enjoyable to watch more than once without any sort of cringe-effect) were Love Actually, The Holiday, Bridget Jones Diary and The Break-Up. Rom-coms that were a massive miss because they were either too predictable or had actors that had no chemistry and an overall bad script were such disasters as, The Rebound, Sex and Death 101 and Heartbreakers. 

Jake and his Anne

So when I saw the trailer for Love and Other Drugs, I instantly got excited. Who hasn't wanted to see a film with Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway in it - not to mention, those two playing romantic interests (again)?! It was one of those "finally!!!!-they are working together on something warm and fuzzy" feelings as opposed to that "depressing yet beautifully tragic" atmosphere (Broke Back Mountain, in which Jake was too busy pining over our beloved Heath to be remotely interested in his stunning Texan wife Anne). This film has potential to be very good. In the trailer it is clear that the two protagonists have a strong chemistry and that they gel together quite well, to the point where you could most certainly believe in real life that they were an item. It seems to have all the makings for a good rom-com: chemistry - tick; humour - tick; relatable drama - tick; predictability....hmmmm...........dash?! Where it has potential to fall short is really in the fault of the trailer itself. The trailer basically revealed a huge chunk of what the story is about and also the potential outcome of the main conflict (guess what you would think happen if a womanising big-shot gets together with a smart but very honest and sexy down-to-earth woman?!-it has heart break written all over it) What audiences will be hoping for, is that what we saw in the 2 1/2 minutes of "teaser" will not be an "executive summary" of the entire film. Let us hope and hope....as I truly do look forward to seeing a very gorgeous Jake woo a very stunning Anne.

....so then follows The Dilemma, on the bottom of that scale.....sliding ever slowly down the drain.....

Hopefully we don't look this clueless by the end of the film....?!

...well I really should give it a bit more credit....it has some very funny...very very funny actors in it - not to mention a very good conflict for the main body of the story. It centres around a best friend discovering that his mate's wife is cheating on him! So therein lies the dilemma!!! To tell or not to tell. Who are the players? Vince Vaughn - the discoverer of the hush hush secret, Winona Ryder - the cheating wife and Kevin Jones - the unsuspecting husband! I love Vince - he cracks me up every time. The only sad trend is the fact that the more Vince's waist expands, the more  "unfunny" his rom-coms have become. The Break-up was his pinnacle....followed by Couples Retreat which dragged on a fair bit and Four Holidays which was so tediously predictable I wanted to scratch my eyes out. Where I see doom and gloom for this jovial affair is the fact that it has great potential to be filled with unwitty and re-used jokes. Have we seen the entirety of Vince's "funniness"???-because it is looking to be that way....

Reece looks like she doesn't know.......

The film that sits in between the two is How do you know. The title is nothing special and in all honesty I had judged the title immediately and felt that yep...this one was going to be another crappy pappy failure of a rom-com. How wrong was I? I thought I'd be enduring the trailer, when in fact, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The film seems to advertise that it will be questioning the all important question of - how do you know if you are in love? It has Reece Witherspoon as the centre of the love triangle with Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd vying for her attention. It looks smart, fun and with Reece's cute girl-next-door qualities, has potential to be very enjoyable. Where it may fall short is the ending - the ending is so important. In fact....the conclusion to a film dictates whether or not I like the film as a whole - and this is not just exclusively talking about rom-coms. I am referring to all genres of film. It's no good having a fantastic story when the ending is lacklustre or abrupt. You want a resolution or at least some sort of consolidation of the two hours you've endured (or 90 minutes). Rom-coms seem to rely on the ending for the overall feel-good intent. So if the ending does not deliver, it truly disappoints. It's like being presented with a mouth-watering scrumptious looking cake only to find that once you bite into it, the pleasure is no where near comparative to the image. 

So which rom-com will trump the others? Will it be the love-triangle centred around Reece? Or the young, vibrant and passionate affair between Jake and his Anne? ....or will Vince surprise me (after a very long absence) and present something that is truly gut-wrenchingly hilarious and not naff????

We will have to wait and see.....

"Triangle" ~ a not so positive review....

Films based on endless time-loops or toy with the very notion of time have the amazing capacity to frustrate me - especially if the film is not well thought out or badly executed. It is very easy to poke holes at films that play with time, that's why, if you are ever going to embark on making a film or even writing a script or a story that uses time as a crucial plot point, I urge you to re-read and go over your story many many times to ensure that you explain and correct any plot holes.....

There are a small number of films that I have enjoyed because they "made sense" using the time-loop concept or the reversal of time. Sadly, there are more films that fail to execute the concept than there are good. "Mr Nobody" toyed with time and explained it through quantum physic theory (which I thought was just brilliant); "Memento" was brilliant because it literally played backwards - and who wrote and directed this masterpiece? Yep - Christopher Nolan, who is quickly becoming more than a favourite director of mine. Another film he executed ever so brilliantly that played with concepts of time and reality was "Inception" - which needless to say, is one of the best films I have seen in my life (that's a big call). There are virtually no plot holes in either of Nolan's films and they play seamlessly without a moment where you as an audience feel as though you've been cheated or missed something.

Ever so predictably...."Triangle" written and directed by Christopher Smith was quite frankly, trying way too hard. I did enjoy the idea behind the story and I enjoyed seeing some Aussies on the screen (although their American accents were pretty bad) and yes, I tried very hard to give this one a chance. It was shot well and I thought the action sequences were commendable, however there was too much senseless violence and the explanation given for the bloodbath was in my humble opinion, not valid. Not to mention....the film whilst trying to tie up all the loose knots in regards to time-looping, failed to mention one very very critical factor - why the bloody hell was the ship abandoned in the first place and how the bloody hell did it get there? 

Before I continue....the title, "Triangle" refers to the yacht that the protagonist boards which "sets off" the events leading to the continual loop. It does not refer to the Bermuda Triangle...although I guess it was calculatingly chosen to give the audience a sense of the fact that the characters were experiencing some sort of Bermuda-Triangle-esque episode.

Why was the explanation given to the mindless violence not valid? 

Well! The main character, Jesse (played by ex-Home and Away star Melissa George) is a single mother who has a "special needs" child and decides to join a friend she met at her work on his yacht with his other friends. Needless to say, the yacht gets capsized after a "freak wave" bowls them over and they board an abandoned cruise liner that passes them, only to find that each one gets knocked off within the first twenty minutes and Jesse discovers that she herself is killing everyone on board. It continues down this track where each time every passenger (except her) dies, the loop re-sets and the passengers re-board the cruise liner. Hmm....the film takes a different turn where Jesse finds herself killing off each replica and trying to escape her own self, unable to kill "herself" she gets thrown off the vessel where she washes up on a beach and makes her way home - only to find (enter drum roll) that she has returned to her home back in time, on the day she was scheduled to get on the yacht! Confronted by her past self she makes a grizzly discovery and decides to murder her "past self" - to which she then takes her son in the car, gets involved in a car accident, walks away unscathed but watches her son die and then decides to get a lift to the wharf where she boards the yacht and the whole sordid mess starts again! 

So my biggest question at the very beginning, was why the bloody hell ('scuze the pun) was Jesse running around killing all the passengers to begin with??? If it were me and I was aware that I was stuck on the ship and faced with another self running around with a shotgun trying to kill off the other passengers, I would have confronted the passengers as soon as they boarded the vessel and told them to stick together and work together to murder the replica Jesse. Break the loop no??? But anyway. Why keep running away and hiding when you have the prior knowledge to change the events? Why let the passengers board the vessel and follow the same route to the theatre where they get shot to death? That made no sense to me. If you were trying to get off the ship, or "stop it" you would immediately look to breaking the chain. Well....that's what I'd do...

The story gets overly complex dropping clues which try to seem clever but in the end serve no real purpose. The biggest mistake that Smith made with his story was that he makes Jesse return to her home in the past and murder herself before she leaves the house to go to the yacht. So does that not mean - that if you returned to the past and killed yourself, you never got on the yacht to begin with??? Does that not mean you in fact don't exist, because you went back in time to kill yourself???? So all that happened before is made redundant???? How can you board a yacht which capsizes and get on a cruise liner if you've been murdered before hand????? That's where Smith tries to tie the loose end up by making Jesse survive the car crash and choose to go back to the wharf. It still fails to make sense though because by killing yourself you would have erased that entire event from happening....turning up as a "replacement" is not relevant because you wouldn't exist as soon as you chopped yourself up in the bedroom......but anyway!!!!!! You get the picture?!

So you can see my conundrum. 

It's funny because I jump online to this website (imdb.com) which is basically my film-guru and check out the message boards for films I've seen. The message board for "Triangle" is littered with theories about how the story "makes sense" and it cracks me up how one person thought that this film was a work of pure genius. I henceforth face-palm myself......it was not genius. This was not genius. It was down right awful.

If you want to watch something that does not make you frustrated after the first thirty minutes - don't see "Triangle"!!!!!

Score: 4/10 (2 marks for Melissa George's acting/1 mark for the cinematography/1 mark for "trying")

An observation

Giselle goes nuts...so the crowd's also reaching for the sword?!?!

I was thinking I'd write about how funny it actually is watching fight scenes in ballets, but then I gradually changed my mind. All of my thoughts naturally occurred whilst watching my new ballet DVD (this weekend it was Nureyev's version of "Romeo & Juliet" danced by the Paris Opera Ballet). Whilst watching the swashbuckling sequences I giggled to myself at how choreographed and "dancey" they were, and then started to extend that thought to how mime sequences in general and the "crowds" in ballet were actually quite comical to watch alone, without all the action occurring in front of them from the protagonists. I mean seriously - and I'm talking to ballet people now or those that have seen this particular ballet - how many Giselle's have you seen where at the conclusion of the first act when Giselle goes nuts, the crowd either stands their loitering and sheepishly, or on the other side of the scale, run rampant like they themselves are mad. Quite funny to watch and especially more so if you take them out of that context.

But no.... this was not the point of my blog post.

Nureyev in his prime

By the time I got to the conclusion of the second Act of Nureyev's R&J I had a little light bulb flicker in my head. Now this notion that I am about to bring up obviously can't be generalized across the board because of the fact that humans are so diverse and different (it's almost like psychology - you can't apply the one theory to every single human being and expect it to be uniform because there will always be little differences). However, from the examples I thought to myself as I was watching this ballet, for me, it seemed to make sense - or it made sense as to why Nureyev's R&J is so different to Sir Kenneth MacMillans.

Sexuality and ballet. 

Or more specifically...sexuality and the choreographer's "ballet". 

Nureyev is notorious for having elevated the status of male dancing in all his ballets - instead of the women being the stars, the men are also given an extra lift to becoming equal (and in some cases they become the star) of the ballet. He does this by adding more dance sequences, more solos for the men. His R&J is a prime example of this. He gave Romeo more solos and with that, harder more intricate steps to work with; the "balcony pas de deux" (which in his version occurs at a fountain and not at a balcony) has less lifts and more side-to-side dancing, so that Romeo and his Juliet in some instances dance as equals; the mandolin dance, which is used to being danced by women, is replaced by a corps dance which included more men than women and men as the central figure for that mis en scene and in general, all the central male figures (ie. Benvolio, Mercutio and Tybalt) are given more guts and padding to their roles (more dancing).

Nureyev's "Romeo & Juliet" is more about the men than the women

It made me realize that yes, whilst the formation of this version took fruition Nureyev himself would have still been up and about dancing - because he never stopped, so that central singular pre-occupation would have driven him to create more solos for himself, but really...that's a rather superficial explanation which only scrapes the mere icing off the cake...and I don't think that it is efficient enough to explain the way in which the final product of his ballets were the way they were. Using "Romeo & Juliet" as the prime example for this case, I found there was less focus on the femininity of the central character of Juliet, less focus on the overall feminine side to the ballet and in saying that, less focus on the initial romance between Romeo and Juliet. I prefer MacMillan's balcony pas de deux (and all pas de deuxs for that matter) to Nureyev's - not just for the choreography, but because of the fact that through the steps, there was the opportunity for the dancers to create that chemistry so integral to carrying this love story. Not to be mistaken - I felt Monique Lourdess (Juliet in this DVD) and Manuel Legris (Romeo) had excellent chemistry and were beautiful together, but had they been given MORE to work with, MORE lifts, MORE partnering-type choreography, they would have been able to showcase a more deeper kind of chemistry. I wanted more love. 

Sir Kenneth MacMillan's lovers

But in saying that....

Nureyev hit the mark and was dead spot on for showcasing emotional angst, longing and despair. From the second Act onwards, the ballet got exciting for me. Nureyev showcased Juliet's emotional conflicts so well and I mean so incredibly well through his pas de trois which involved the ghosts of Mercutio and Tybalt, that I felt it was better than MacMillan's interpretation of the lead up to the great tragedy. I loved the angst that he brought to the ballet - and "Romeo & Juliet" needs that emotional layer. Why else would two lovers die for each other? There needed to be that painful and heart-wrenching side to the story which I felt Nureyev carried off so perfectly. If I could mesh MacMillan's romance and his way of making two people fall in love on stage, with Nureyev's emotional angst, longing, pain and destruction we would have the most perfect interpretation of Shakespeare's story in dance, ever!

Sir Kenneth MacMillan

Now - back to my earlier note of sexuality and dance. Well....after looking at my examples above, I felt that it was clear that the choreographer's sexuality has a lot to do with how the ballet (and particularly narrative ballet) becomes constructed. The end product becomes a demonstration of why the choreographer chose to do what he did. I felt, that the reason for men being elevated in his ballets and the reason for less interaction between man and woman and especially the fact that his romantic scenes were not "complete" was because, Nureyev being homosexual and promiscuous, meant that he spent more time longing for love than actually being in love (and the obvious fact being that for him, falling in love with a woman and showcasing that on stage was no where near as interesting as showcasing the male form in all its virtuoso glory). I know...very big statement to make - but for me, that makes sense. Still using R&J as the example - if you look at Sir Kenneth's version, he has more love between the two protagonists and that love is really showcased - but less angst....(I felt) - why? - Kenneth being heterosexual, married (and later having a daughter) had more experience of love between a man and woman (naturally) and the feeling of love than he did angst. Therefore you can see it in all of his ballets (just about). MacMillan was a very sexual man and his ballets reflected this (eg. "Manon, "Mayerling", "Romeo & Juliet"). So that is why MacMillan's star-crossed lovers could not get their hands off each other and Nureyev's were doomed from the onset. 

Nureyev with Margot Fonteyn in MacMillan's Romeo & Juliet

But it makes sense.... well, it explains why MacMillan's ballets are so sexual, so raw, so real (at times). It explains why Nureyev's ballets involve less focus between the relationship of man and woman, and more on just the dancing - or showcasing the talents of men.

MacMillan's "Romeo & Juliet"

In saying that, it's not denigrating one from the other - both products are fantastic, but it's just interesting, as a social observation to note why things were done the way they were done....

....but quickly! Before we depart...

Another example springs to mind and it's a very obvious example = Balanchine and his ballerinas. It was no secret that Balanchine had fallen in love with all his muses and was enraptured by women. So it is no wonder that the women of the New York City Ballet were the stars. In all his ballets - women are the central figures, they are the central force. If you were a man in NYCB during Balanchine's years, you weren't the focus. Sure there was more emphasis on the collective, that apparently there were "no stars" in Balanchine's company, but that was not true at all - his women were the stars. 

Why? Because Balanchine loved women and what better way to demonstrate that than through something that he was so passionate about - ballet.

Balanchine and his women