Pina

Pina Bausch died just prior to this being made. I was familiar with her just briefly from Almodovar's Talk To Her, but sadly not more and not live. So, at least for the time being, this is as much as we'll get to know her, independent of her being here to explain, assuming she would at all, and this is perhaps the most fitting part. We'll get to know her in the purest sense possible, by what dance stirred her heart. Because in a sense you are what you have embodied and made life from, everything else being words, roles, play-acting, it is more than enough to have just this. It is what dance is all about.

And this is how she handled her troupe, as a director herself. Hints, abstract frameworks. How it comes across in the actual dance is a marvel; the debris of unfinished thoughts in the midst of empty space, of course the entire flow framed small in empty stages, but in each person as well, bits of recognizable motion in the midst of syncopated blurs, half-finished gestures of story.

We see plenty of I assume excerpts of her dances, all of them more or less captivating. I do not know a thing about the medium, so I will let aficionados explain the importance of how she innovated form. She might as well have been an inverse Beckett for all I know, danced, acting out hurt that he repressed.

But I am interested in film, and how images can seduce into the surface the core of our being. And what Pina do the images reveal? Lonely, hurt, strong, frantic search. An anxious sexuality at heart, or better yet anxious at the prospect of touch, connection.

And it is important to note this connection with her players, and by extension ourselves as viewers. All of them without exception are baffled to communicate their relationship with her, as though it was so visceral, so 'now', it is impossible to relate after the fact, disembodied in words. I'm sure they could all say it with a dance, wonderfully so. It is even possible that not all of them got her - one of them dedicates weightlessness in her memory, where the Pina I saw was all about weight and pull.

But the're all definitely sure of one thing, that she looked into their innermost self.

Meddlesome words again, 'that she looked into their innermost self'. Watching the film, this is what I get the sense Pina accomplished: she allowed empty space around these people, not over-directing, not explaining every gesture, perhaps not even communicating a whole point or story, reflecting this in the actually sparse surroundings she prepared around them, so at her smallest hint they poured into that space their own spontaneous being. They came out having bared self, having made sense - body, motion - what used to be words, ideas, having been one with just the moment. Pina had only made it possible they do.

She asked one of her dancers to portray joy, as simple as this. He offered his version, personal self, and she choreographed a scene around it.

So there it is in a nutshell, a valuable insight for us viewers. This is something you watch without the need to know what it means, trusting it does in the exchange.

Oh, there is Wenders in all this. Wenders is a frame artist, always looking for something to frame and apply colors to. Most of the time he has dull insights. In Tokyo-Ga, he set out to frame Ozu but missed by so much it made me cringe. Here he comes across a woman that is unfettered soul. He does not puzzle about how you film dance, trusting she has taken care of even that. He does not get in the way too much, most of the time carving with his camera soft paths inside the dance. His dull insight, in an attempt to somehow address the cinematic experience, is the whole as one more staged performance before an audience - many re-enactions on different stages occur in the film, some of them projected on a screen. But he does not turn any of this into a story, which is bound to alienate most viewers.

It is perhaps lucky that Wenders did this, opposed to say someone like Almodovar who commands deeply layered vision. Like Pina's dancers, he is an empty vessel. She fills with the joy of color.

Let me start by saying, that this movie has no story. And it is not a documentary, as I would define it. So what is this movie? I have no idea! I am not into modern dance, but I was impressed and exited at the same time while watching the actors dance (or act? or create? or??).

There are four longer dance parts and plenty of small pieces, small interviews and only a tiny part with Pina Bausch. The locations for the scenes where great. The 3d effect was great, the stage seems real, and the dancers were just amazing. I felt sorry as I discovered how limited language is. This dance told more about the emotions than any words could.

I saw this film first in a 2D version and loved it - hence the high score. I saw it a week later in 3D because I thought I ought to see what all the fuss was about. I was hugely disappointed. The 3D detracted rather than added to the experience. Perhaps the technology isn't quite good enough yet or this just wasn't the type of film that would benefit from the 3D effects. I found it a distraction from the beauty of the dance. We all know dance happens on a stage in three dimensions and our brains compensate for this when we see a film. We don't need to have the dancers coming at us out of the screen. If you like modern dance you'll see this film and enjoy it. If you don't know whether or not you like it it might convert you, but definitely seek out a 2D version.

Whether Wender's work is considered a film, eulogy or a documentary, I can say that I have never felt so much for a production of moving pictures before that I would feel the necessity to express my thoughts through written words.

I have a great passion for dance and used to practice it a lot more a few years ago. Hence, this film was a must-see for me whatever whoever says. The downside with dance on film is the failure of the screen to convey depth, and I didn't find the 3D effects particularly impressing here, I must admit. But then again, without it, I am sure it would be hard not to get dull watching 100 minutes of flat images, sometimes randomly and unexpectedly cut of the context.

Because there is no storyline in the film. Not very much of replicas either to explain in clear words why or if the different pieces are linked together, and definitely nothing to tell about Pina Bausch's private life. But that is also what makes this film so clean and consistent; dance says it all.

If Pina lived today, her presence in the film would certainly be more evident to us. The film would let us follow her and her dance company on performances with more straight forward dialogues. Instead, the spirit of Pina is expressed through dance here. Dance is the way she would use to communicate her messages to the world, so why would words then be necessary? Even less, why would personal details of her life matter in this film when what we will remember of her, as with other known names throughout the history, will be for their creations, inspirations and contributions to our world?

Pina's art is shown piece by piece in the film featuring choreographies and performing arts carried out by her closest dancers in different milieux. Both outdoors in the open landscape and modern cityscape, as well as indoors on a stage. It expresses diversity and unity at the same time, gives life to poetry and most remarkably, making music visible in a way that I have not seen in a film before. It describes relationships between men and women, young and old, human and nature, along with senses of loneliness, yearning, passion, pain and joy mixed with a dose of subtle humour.

And they are all performed by a group of highly skillful professionals of different ages, nationalities and languages, whom sometimes, through open monologues, give us an insight on Pina's character. Not only do they reach out to touch by movements, but also through empathy and facial expressions of compassion, making them very credible actors/actresses.

To sum up: If you can deal with lack of dialogues without getting bored, make sure then to have some understanding about dance, or a general interest in art and scenography to truly appreciate this film. It is a definition of beauty and a way to remember Pina Bausch.

Pina is being classed as a musical, but it's more of a documentary. More than this, it's a cinematic eulogy to Pina Bausch, one of the world's most influential dancers.

The filmic concept is simple. Footage consisting mainly of contemporary performances of Pina's ballets performed by her dancers is interposed with archive footage of the legendary figure herself. Each dancer, at their turn, looks squarely at the camera and offers their own recollection of how Pina inspired them. This is followed by a demonstration of their learning.

It seems that filming dance is making a comeback in cinema. But after seeing 'Black Swan' and now this, I wonder if dance loses something on the big screen? Maybe the realism or the urgency. Definitely something. It's the same with music concerts. You have to be there.

I'm of the opinion that you have to be an artist to understand other artists. They're a different breed. Where else, for instance, would the remark 'you just have to get crazier' be appropriate if not in dance? Some scenes are bizarre. No they're not. They're mad. Mad like Pina told her students to be. There are some arresting images, which to tease us, Wenders doesn't linger on.

The predictable comment being made of Wenders' film is that it is surreal. I don't believe it is truly surreal. Yes, some of the visuals are unusual – like the Australian dancer who dances with abandon on a street corner with cars driving past and a train travelling upside down. Or the act involving two men spitting water at each other. Or better still the act with a man pulling his trousers up and down. But I swear the effects seem remarkably natural.

I was agape throughout the scene where one dancer in a serene industrial site shows a couple of cuts of meat to us and shouts 'veal!' before dancing on her tiptoes for what seemed like forever. Where was the beauty? I wondered after. I can't explain it. It is just there.

There's nothing snobbish about this film. There's not much that is esoteric either. The music is eclectic and the nationalities of the dancers are diverse. Pina united people. This film isn't exclusively for dance lovers; it's for admirers of culture.

Although I would find a second viewing of Pina to be quite taxing, I have no trouble in recommending it to anyone. It's unlike anything I've seen. It expresses beauty in a way I did not think plausible.

www.scottishreview.net