writersmorgue Review of The Dancer

The Dancer (2016)

Left me questioning director Stéphanie Di Giusto

[3/10 · 18 February 2024]

In many ways, this film was produced like most French films, where dialogue is not the guide for storytelling but rather the body and setting. I enjoy these films; however, most French directors will often mention that this type of aim for a film can pose more of a challenge compared to explanation through dialogue. Unfortunately for me, this was the case with The Dancer. The issue with dialogue being thrown on the back burner is the question it raises for the alternative, leaving room for as much success as there is for the opposite. Although Giusto had done a fair amount of research on Loïe Fuller (Marie Louise Fuller), her angle in which to portray Fuller's story is one of her own preferences, which is natural. But as with any artist and their own opinions and preferences, come the critics and theirs, followed by those dreadful expectations. Luckily, I'm not a critic whose expectations exclude the vision intended by the artist based on my opinion, since art is subjective to me. However, I could not ignore how utterly discontented the movie left me. The film, in general terms, is a well-exaggerated version of Fuller's biopic. Personally, I believe, depending on the changes, there is high risk in certain exaggerations of truth when it comes to biographical motion pictures. For example, the character Louis (who is a fictional character) was mentioned to be a sacrificial male who existed as a mere distraction from the fact that Loïe was homosexual. Giusto explained that it was personally important to her that the dancer's sexuality wasn't the subject. However, towards the end of the film, we witnessed a defeated Loïe who questioned her career and passion for dance, and I couldn't help but subconsciously wonder: was this because she was rejected by her protégé, Isadora Duncan? Did she really throw it all away for one-sided love? Loïe Fuller was displayed as a unique woman who moved freely and by her own law, so no, the fact that she was with a woman wasn't what I took away from this as the main subject, but rather her great sadness towards the rejection of Isadora. It was like she met her match, being faced with a free-spirited girl like herself, she fell in love and it drained her to the bone. It left a negative stain overall. Even without the very peculiar Louis, who lurked in the shadows of Loïe (hoping for her to be his, as she hoped the same from Isadora), other notices beyond the dancers sexuality would've stood out for me. At first I assumed the point was that Loïe, predominately, gave up one passion for another that only rejected her, and in turn, she let misery control her, made the ending a bit more off-track for me. Louis, though irrelevant to the truth of the story, was certainly entertaining. Though I still believe his reason for existing in the first place was unnecessary to the point of overshadowing the dancer's sexuality, I suppose what was also meant to aid in deluding the prominence of Fuller's sexuality was the very brief scenes that Soko (Loïe Fuller) and Lily-Rose Depp (Isadora Duncan) had where a bond was being formed. These scenes were a bit disappointing, but respectfully, I feel it is because they were rather rushed and cheap in essence. Lily Depp was praised by Giusto for being a superb actress at the age of 15-16, I believe. I'm afraid I would have to disagree. Giusto did well in casting Loïe; she mentioned wanting faces that weren't well known. But Lily's acting, although brief, constantly edged toward an amateur performance. She spoke as if she were reading the script in her head and moved as if acting too early on cue, among other things, like a slight lack of authenticity in speech and movement. Other things, like the time skips which felt too masked, but I suppose you will get that when you're doing a biopic and don't have a full portfolio of information about the person. And what about the forwarded ending where we see a Loïe who all of a sudden seems to have found herself? She's older and still teaching dance. I can imagine these choices in direction run the risk of ruining the cinematic aesthetic for viewers, and unfortunately for me, they did. I think generally it was an interesting movie, good in theory. It certainly did open my eyes to other forward thinkers of the 18th century, naming Loïe Fuller as one of them, and for that I can be grateful.