Film Review: The Eerie Dance Drama of “Pina”

photo courtesy of Hanway Films

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Pina

HANWAY FILMS

103 minutes

Pina, nominated for this year’s Documentary Feature Academy Award, is a 3-D tribute to famed post-Expressionist German choreographer Pina Bausch. The film teeters somewhere between a documentary and a performance, structured by interpretations of four of Bausch’s most famous dances. I went into the film knowing nothing about the choreographer, and barely anything about dance, but somehow that didn’t matter—it hooked me straight away.

Bausch (who died two days before the start of filming in 2009) was famous for popularizing a form of dance called “Tanztheater,” or dance theater—a style characterized less by grace and athleticism than for merging strong elements of drama and movement. However, she was equally known (and quite controversial) for her unsettling depictions of overtly sexual, violent, and sometimes grotesque interactions between men and women (the New Yorker once dubbed it “theatre of cruelty”.) Director Wim Wenders immediately confronts us with this aspect of her art in the film’s opening sequence, a haunting rendition of Bausch’s famous “Rite of Spring.” Women run around the dirt-covered stage in clusters, groping themselves and their clothing as if distressed by their own physical forms, while one woman writhes face-down on a crimson cloth. As a group of men stalk hungrily onstage, the women suddenly form a mass and begin violently beating down in a primal and possessed synchrony. In keeping with Stravinsky’s original, one woman eventually sacrifices her body to the men, dancing to her own death.

 

The film’s version of “Rite of Spring” stays fairly true to Bausch’s original, but some of the other sequences are more loosely based interpretations of dances she choreographed for the stage. One advantage of seeing these pieces in film, however, is the camera’s freedom, which allows us to more personally know the dancers’ faces as well as the fine movements of their bodies. Each of the four pieces are interspersed with sustained portrait-like shots of the individual performers—all of whom danced under Bausch at some point since her choreographic debut in 1968—staring nakedly at the camera, dubbed over with their recollections of Bausch as a person and creator. (As a choreographer, Bausch seemed to offer very little concrete direction to her dancers, preferring baffling and vague requests such as asking them to dance like “the moon” or scare her.)  The dancers traveled from all over the world to perform in Bausch’s company, and since they come from all stages of her long career as a choreographer, they range from young to old and able-bodied to shrinking—but all tell a (sometimes frustratingly) similar tale of falling under Bausch’s artistic spell. 

?But perhaps the most conspicuous element of watching the dances on film is seeing such intense motion in 3-D. The technique may be becoming more ubiquitous (one of the trailers before the film was for an epically restored 3-D version of Titanic set to Celine Dion’s famed crooning), but it especially suits a movie so closely focused on the physicality of its subjects. The four pieces featured in the film take place on and off a traditional stage—some sequences are performed on subway cars, sweeping hilltops, busy intersections, and ethereal forests in northwest Germany, where Bausch’s dance company was located. Wenders says, of his decision to shoot the film 3-D: “Even if you use a hand-held camera and are among the dancers, you’re still outside.” With 3-D, he explains, he was able “to work in their own element.” Merged with black-and-white shots of Bausch’s own vigorous yet fragile frame dancing, the effect is a poignant impression of her vision of bodily movement.??

“What are we longing for? Where does all this yearning come from?” one of the dancers recalls Bausch asking him. Though you get nothing of her personal life or history in the film, it is clear that this is the central question of the choreographer’s work—and moviegoers are bound to leave with a glimpse of Bausch’s very singular artistic yearning. For those familiar with her, the film will serve as a fitting tribute; for those as wide-eyed as I was, the film will likely leave you wanting to know much more about Pina Bausch.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate