kz917-1 A behind the scenes look at the concept, creation and choreography of a new ballet for the New York City Ballet. One the Corps members is tasked with the choreography and assisting the costume and lighting teams in creating a piece over several months. I enjoy documentaries and have seen several about the topic of ballet, if that is your wheelhouse you will enjoy it as well.

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.

jjjppplll I'm not a fan of ballet -- I've never been to a ballet. But I'm a huge fan of film. And I'm a documentary nerd. This documentary was perfect. I also have a high-level job in a high- pressure environment, so I was really fascinated by the intensity with which the key players prepared for the big premier. I found myself rewinding this film numerous times to re-watch scenes, because I was mesmerized by their beauty. My wife even came down and asked me, "What are you doing?"The film does a wonderful job of showing all of the pieces that are necessary for putting together a ballet of the highest caliber. Like anything of excellence, it's hard friggin work, and somebody has to be in charge.If you like film...and especially if you like ballet...this is a must see. Bravo.

xoxoamore I just saw this film at Filmlinc (Feb 6, 2015). Let's just say that Jody Lee Lipes is no Frederick Wiseman. The film just not have the length of a Wiseman film (Ballet 422 is 72 minutes; Wiseman films run 3-4 hours). Wiseman usually spends at least 3 months with his subjects. Lipes explained he really knows nothing about ballet (though he is married to Ellen Barr, a former NYCB soloist and current head of their media operations). I think it really helps if you are (and have been) a NYCB frequent viewer. I was able to identify most of the dancers (even the corps). Albert Evans (who helps Peck) is a former NYCB principal and current ballet master. He is obviously in charge of Peck's work (in that he could set it on new dancers or another company). The person who talked to Justin about talking to the orchestra in Cameron Grant, a company pianist who both plays for rehearsals and class but also performances (Pictures At An Exhibition).When I see a a Wiseman film I feel I really understand the institution he is portraying. Here, I didn't really feel I had any better understanding of the choreographic process. How did Justin pick this music? How did he pick the dancers? What were the money constraints? What was Peter's role (you know he had one)? There were also a few things I really didn't like. One was Lipes showing Justin complaining to Albert about Amar Ramasar, one of his leads. Amar seems like a relaxed, good guy, but no dancer wants to be called out like that on camera. The other was Lipes final shot, which was of Concerto DSCH (which Justin is preparing to dance) with Bizet's Symphony in C (NOT its music) playing over the visuals. We only get about 2 minutes of what Paz DE la Jolla looked like on stage. That was really a letdown and something a Wiseman would never do. I mean, the whole film is about the creation of Paz and then show only 2 minutes? And end with Ratmansky's masterpiece? What a letdown. And if Lipes knew more about ballet, maybe he'd have realized a bit more what it means to end with another choreographer's work.Anyway, I enjoy everything ballet and really like film, too. This is not a great film but if you like NYCB (and new work) this is a must see. If not, may be a pass.