Hmmmm. I'm letting you in on a guilty secret: I have been known to read gossip for fun. Now, flinging around the internet (and most gossip columns and even some real news outlets) is the epic battle between the star and the director of
Black Swan--that would be Natalie Portman of Oscar fame and Darren Aronovsky) and the star's dancing stand-in (that would be Sarah Lane.) Lane is claiming she did most of the dancing with no real credit and is upset that people think someone could learn to be a ballerina in a year and a half. She has been dancing for 22 years. She went so far as claiming Portman couldn't even dance on pointe (on your toes, if anyone doesn't know.)
According to the always entertaining Ted Casablanca of E! News online's The Awful Truth:
Natalie's dancing partner (and now baby daddy fiancé) Benjamin Millepied took to her defense on the matter, claiming Nat did "85 percent" of the dancing. Sarah Lane disputes this.
Director Aronofsky would like to take that one [too], as he tells E! News:
"Here is the reality. I had my editor count shots. There are 139 dance shots in the film. 111 are Natalie Portman untouched. 28 are her dance double Sarah Lane. If you do the math that's 80 percent Natalie Portman. What about duration? The shots that feature the double are wide shots and rarely play for longer than one second. There are two complicated longer dance sequences that we used face replacement. Even so, if we were judging by time over 90% would be Natalie Portman. And to be clear Natalie did dance on pointe in pointe shoes. If you look at the final shot of the opening prologue, which lasts 85 seconds, and was danced completely by Natalie, she exits the scene on pointe. That is completely her without any digital magic. I am responding to this to put this to rest and to defend my actor. Natalie sweated long and hard to deliver a great physical and emotional performance. And I don't want anyone to think that's not her they are watching. It is." If you want to read more, follow the link to Casablanca's blog (I hope he doesn't mind my small borrowing.)
Lane is right, of course, you cannot turn yourself into a "real" ballet dancer in a year and a half. But who actually thinks the dance sequences add up to a whole ballet? Lane? Who is she kidding? With specific training to do a limited number of steps, moves, etc., a dedicated person with smarts and will power could very likely do enough to fool the audience into imagining her as a great ballerina.
But my interests lie elsewhere. First, Lane's defense of the long hard work required to master ballet is admirable and completely true. And who knows, maybe the film and all the discussion will get more people into the theater to watch an actual ballet. I hope so. If it is that simple to create a new audience, the dance world owes the film a debt of gratitude. Ballet is a marvelous art form, and should be seen and enjoyed. I saw Swan Lake for my last birthday, instead of an opera or a Broadway show, which I would normally choose. It was glorious. And the sad truth is, audiences for ballet are shrinking--noticeably. Opera seems healthy in comparison. If the controversy helps in any way, I'm glad for that,
But second, most of the people watching the film have to be thinking, who the hell cares? If I want to believe Portman is a dancer, I will. It's an acting role above and beyond everything else. Personally, I don't care if she didn't do ANY of the steps. It's an ACTING assignment. And Lane cannot deny that Portman DID do some of it. The counting of shots seems pretty conclusive to me. He could easily be proved wrong if he is exaggerating. Just like the dancing in Chicago a few years back, the question was did the actors do their own dancing? Yes, they did. They spent weeks learning them. Most of them are shot in fragmentary form, so careful editing could eliminate false steps, mistakes, etc. And the dancing did not make up a majority of the film. The same holds true for Black Swan. Are they any better or worse if the dancing is shared? Or not?
NOOOOOOOO! Stop being stupid. It's a movie! It's not a filmed performance! Lane, get over yourself! You have made the wrong point. You SHOULD have said that true ballet is a decades long pursuit and hopefully, the popularity of this film will allow more dancers to be seen live. Go get back on the stage and prove your worth there. Movies are not "real." They are put together of parts. Shot out of order. Created by computers. Edited to make actors look better. Have a music score to manipulate your emotions. Only idiots think movie are just an actor's medium, and they will not be buying a ticket to anything even near a staged ballet, now, or in the future. We all applaud the defense of unheralded performers. But art forms are not equal. Live performances will always be more difficult to pull off with great skill. Of course they are! Natalie Portman did not claim to dance everything all at once in one take. THAT is the only "reality" that needs to be pointed out. Only the same idiots who think movies are real, think acting in them is as hard as acting in a play, musical, ballet, or opera. The same goes for dancing in them or singing in them. The idea is preposterous to anyone who loves both film and live shows. I defend great movie acting. Some things can only work on film. (Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice, for instance. Hell, Natalie Portman in Black Swan.) But Derek Jacobi or Ian McKellen in a live King Lear will always trump ANYONE'S on film. Stop puny arguments that hurt The Arts. Hate-mongers in government are already doing that.
An enlightening read.
ReplyDelete