sidwich

We probably don't like the music so much because it's R&H, because in 'Mary Poppins' you get a sillier score, but since it's Livingston and Evans, it doesn't seem to matter so much. 'Mary Poppins' is boring, but probably a better film because made for the screen.

Man, I must the only person who loves "The Lonely Goatherd"... I'll also go so far to say that I really like "Edelweiss" and I get weepy at the end of the "The Sound of Music" when the big major chords come out ("my heart will be bleeeesssseeeeddd by the sound of the music..."). I think some of the score of "The Sound of Music" suffers from the sacharine staging, though. How can you not hate the seven chirping kids by Act II? When "A Grand Night for Singing" changed the arrangement of "Maria," I liked it much, much better.

I'm almost positive that the score for "Mary Poppins" was written by the Sherman brothers, who I think were on staff at Disney for much of the 60s and 70s (the also wrote "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" and "The Slipper and the Rose"). And while it's not as interesting as R&H, even second-rate R&H, I think it works perfectly well with the first-rate animation and an overall entertaining film. I like a lot of the earlier Disney music much more.

I don't like the music to 'SWEENEY TODD' either.

I don't know that we can be friends.

However, before we wax too nostalgic, I suppose we should note that the great studio machinery turned out mostly junk - in every department, although I’m very fond of some of that junk. It’s going further off topic, but IMO movies in general improved after the collapse of the old system. Reasons available upon request.

I think there are great, great movies that have been made since the 60s and 70s that never would have been made under the studio system for one reason or another (like "Blade Runner" for example), but I would disagree that *generally* movies are better. The vast majority of movies are transitory entertainment (I don't call them "junk" because like Scorcese, I think there's something interesting in almost every movie that's made), and probably always will be. In other words, there's always going to be good movies, and there's always going to be "junk" and I'm not sure that the ratio between the two is ever going to be much different.

I'd also say there's also some phenomenal "junk" that was made under the studio system like the Lewton-Tourneur horror cheapies ("Cat People," "I walked with a Zombie," etc.)

The Hollywood economics that have developed in the vacuum left by the studio system really aren't conducive to a lot of movies, like musicals, and that I find really unfortunate. If it were up to me, I would be hard-pressed to greenlight a musical in the current environment. It's pretty high-risk for the money involve, and it doess make me very curious to see what the plan is for the "Sweeney Todd."

You know, I used to think that any musical that managed to get made was a Good Thing in principle, but I'm not so sure any more. The good 'musicals' in the last few decades seem to be hybrids like "Saturday Night Fever" and "Dirty Dancing" -- pictures that are based in song and dance, but in a different way. (Or "Pennies from Heaven.")

I still think it's a good thing. I'm still hoping that somebody can come up with a formula that will make musicals a viable economic venture in the future. Perhaps with Burton and Depp's box office clout, it will work.

To me, Plummer seemed to be wishing that he was elsewhere.

I'm not wild on Christopher Plummer as the Captain, either. And I would have preferred someone who could sing. (I don't think Julie Andrews is *that* old...)

I think My Fair Lady is better than it's generally given credit for, although Rex Harrison was getting too old for the part and had done it too many times. (Robert Preston in The Music Man, same problem.) I wouldn't have cast anyone else in either role, however -- as a practical matter anyone else was unthinkable.

Even though it doesn't have music, I prefer the Howard-Hiller film. I'm one of the few, but I really don't like Rex Harrison as Higgins. (His performance in "Unfaithfully Yours" is priceless, though).

I do think "Music Man" gets underrated. Not so sure about the film, but the play always suffered in comparison to "West Side Story" which came out the same season. I think it's an excellent piece, though, really beautifully put together as far as character, music and story.

One of 20th Century Fox's rare good musicals, but I agree, the machinery was in place back then for the production of competent musicals. Only a few would be great or even that good, but you had entire studio units with skill and experience ready at hand, a roster of stars who were the best at what they did, and when the chemistry was right everything worked.

"State Fair" was also one of the few Fox musicals that didn't star a blonde. Dunno how *that* got by Zanuck!

As far as the musical units, I think that's true of filmmaking in general at the time. Goodness knows the studio system had many, many flaws, but the machinery was in place to turn out dozens of films at a time quickly and economically. Not all of them were great, but people got to practice how to make a movie. Now, it's so expensive to make a film that most filmmakers are lucky if they make a film every few years. Eastwood is one of the few that's still turning out a film a year, and it's remarkable. (Not that all his films are great, but he has a greater chance of making a good movie than someone who only turns out a film every 3, 4 or 5 years).

With musicals, I think that's just even more true just because they particularly are both so expensive and difficult to make. There are just so many moving pieces that must be in place to make a musical, and I think that's much of why there are so very few made anymore. So if Burton does get "Sweeney Todd" off the ground, my hat is off to him... even though I'm rather apprehensive about the results.

What frustrates me, though, is that the alpha males aren't taking control of the competition. Mario, Emmitt and Joey all showed aptitude at the beginning of the competition and they continue to show aptitude. What they're not showing is improvement -- they are not progressing the way Drew, Lisa and even Jerry did in Season Two.

I actually think that Mario's mambo was a distinct improvement over his previous performances. His lack of partnering is the biggest weakness I see in his dancing, and it was the only performance from him this season that actually showed any substantive lead-follow, the only performance from any of the male celebs, actually. I suspect it's because of his previous familiarity with the dance and the music and he doesn't have any conscious understanding of why it may have "felt better," but hopefully Karina can build on it in future performances.

Joey tries hard, but Edyta is just not a very good coach or choreographer. And she can't get him on beat. Which drives me crazy. It's like nails on a chalkboard when I watch them. His attempts to lead pain me as well.

Emmitt's just not a performer, and Cheryl is not going to be able to drag it out of him in the timeframe this show is on. He has a naturally engaging personality and a sense of "groove," but dances either click into his personality and feel for the music or not.

I also question why Louis gave in to Monique's desire to perform a solo. She's not always in command of herself when she's performing with Louis -- why would he think she would be any more in command by herself?

I don't think the point of the "solo" was question of command. I think it was a bid by Louis to get her to engage in her performance. He's built a good technical foundation in her dancing, and she's steadily improved technically throughout the season. On a week in week out basis, she's executing some of the difficult choreography of any of the celebs. The only celeb that sometimes does more difficult work is Mario.

What she needs is to be able to bring the audience in more, and I think Louis was trying to break that shell. Watching her, I think it's going to be much easier to bring her back from the edge and under control than have her take baby steps out, which will take too long with the timeframe of the show.

I don't know what Louis was thinking trying to graft the krumping style on to a samba. The result was a bit of a mess.

I didn't love it, but with the African beats that are intrinsic to ballroom samba, I don't think it was a *total* mess. The music that they were given was really problematic. (Although I disagree with the judges that Louis didn't choreograph a samba. The music was not samba, but much of the choreography was syllabus samba figures.)

'Oliver!' is one which comes to mind that probably is an improvement, esp. since Lean is following up his own b & w masterpiece. I also like big chunks of 'Hello, Dolly!', 'Funny Girl', and 'Gypsy,' although the last is supposed to be loathed by Sondheim, who of course wrote the lyrics.

I think "Oliver!" is Carol Reed, and he does do a really good job of it. Actually, he probably does one of the best jobs of not falling into the museum, waxy-quality that 60's musical adaptations tended to get into, especially when directed by non-musical directors. As much as I generally like William Wyler and George Cukor, I don't think "Funny Girl" or "My Fair Lady" is the best work by either of them.

Bob Fosse also did very well with adapting "Cabaret."

I agree, though, that the best film musicals tend to have been written and directed directly for film. I think they've most been able to take advantage of the qualities intrinsic to the medium, and not get hemmed in by a vision originally developed for stage. Generally, they were also been written specifically for a specific film star to take advantage of his or her specific talents and persona which makes the search for a star that much easier.

I never saw 'A Little Night Music,' which I think is Sondheim's only show with both music and lyrics that has made it to the screen, but I've always heard it was bad.

"A Funny Thing Happened..." also made it to film. "A Little Night Music" is amazingly bad, but it did give us the revised "Glamorous Life."

May God forgive me, I've always liked 'The Sound of Music.' I never saw it on stage but I suspect the picture was an improvement.

I think it is an improvement. It's the only R&H that doesn't have a Hammerstein book, and it tends to come across as sticky sweet on stage. By opening up the action, Wise gives the story more of an urgency with the impending Nazi invasion. The realism of film dissipates the "magic" that many of the R&H musicals have on stage ("Carousel" for example), but it works for "Sound of Music." (I kind of miss the songs the Baroness and Max have, though).

I'd been hoping that the Meryl Streep rumors would be borne out, but they could do worse than Helena Bonham Carter for Mrs. Lovett. She can act, but I do wonder if she has the creepy humor and charisma necessary for Mrs. Lovett.

I'm at least as concerned about Tim Burton's direction as either Bonham Carter or Depp and their singing (oh, the wonder of modern recording and engineering!). Looking back at some of his earlier work, it hasn't aged well at all, and I'm hoping he doesn't fall back on pseudo-German expressionism again.

This is just my opinion, but I did not read Segal's piece as a wholesale attack on ballet, but rather one of those lists that you make up from time to time about what's really bothering you about a loved one. He hasn't couched his thoughts in a very warm and fuzzy way, but I find myself agreeing with many of them, and what is more, some of them echo thoughts that are posted on this board (and often). Many of us sigh when we see another season of "Swan Lake" and "Giselle" scheduled, shake our heads at the pirates and slave girls in "Le Corsaire" and whisper just a little more when Dancer X's collar bones become extra prominent this year. I think Segal has just voiced concerns that many of us have, albeit more volcanically than may be comfortable for many.

Ferri in R&J is usually a pretty crowded affair. I would probably try to get to the box office early, but it's probably not necessary to be there before 10. For hot-tickets, (Nina in "Swan Lake," Ferri-Bocca in R&J), I would usually get there between 10 and 11, and that would usually be fine to get first row orchestra. The Met box office people have always been very helpful to me as far as advising what best view would be.

But I agree, casting actors who aren't familiar with Shakespeare can be a dicey affair. For example, Annette Bening in the otherwise excellent Richard III.

Bening may have been miscast and she may have given a poor performance (I haven't seen this adaptation, so I don't know), but I doubt she was unfamiliar with Shakespeare when she was cast since she was trained at the American Conservatory Theatre and was a member of the company for a while before transferring to film.

I think much of ballet's image in the U.S. derives from its relative inaccessibility. And much of that is sheer physical inaccessibility for most people. ABT and NYCB are by far the most visible ballet companies in the U.S. NYCB is resident at Lincoln Center in New York, and ABT performs its longest and most publicized seasons in New York. Outside of New York, I think ballet is a performing arts afterthought, and outside of the other major metropolitan areas that have a major ballet company (San Francisco, Houston, etc.), it's not even on people's radar.

I know in Los Angeles, which is not exactly Podunk USA, it is an effort for me to make it to a ballet performance, usually entailing a rather excruciating drive to either downtown to the Music Center or the Orange County Performing Arts Center. If I had not been exposed to the joy and relative ease and affordability of going to the ballet from living in NY for many years, I KNOW I would not be making that effort.

When people outside of those areas and especially outside of New York, I think ballet is either identified with young girls taking dance class or pictures of the New York social "elite" at splashy formal benefits. Maybe ABT comes to town once or twice a year, but I don't think people are going to make that effort to buy tickets (which can be expensive for many people) unless you already know that you enjoy it? I don't think a broadcast of "Dance in America" once a year is really going to do it for most people. I benefitted from a good education, lots of exposure to the performing arts growing up, but for myself, I know I did not really think about making ballet a part of my performing arts life until I lived in New York and was exposed to it as a facet of city life. (There's something about shopping for tomatoes next to Vladimir Malakhov that makes ballet that much more tangible).

Helene has pointed toward this with the fact that Americans are willing to part with hard-earned funds for sports far more frequently. Americans also love very highly-skilled sports which are not considered arts as such--they are always involved with the Olympics, with figure skating, gymnastics, with the diving and skiing competitions, etc., even leaving out basketball, baseball, and football.

Americans are highly competitive people, and one way in which it manifests is the American love of sports. They LOVE sports in ways that other countries can't comprehend (except when World Cup comes round). When I lived in Europe, I remember the Europeans thinking we were completely insane for how much we loved our sports. We love to win. I think it has something to do with our belief in meritocracy.

I don't think that the average American spends that much money in participating in sports though, and I don't think that you'd see so many kids trying to play their way out of the projects if they were. Schmaltzy B-roll during the championships are usually about how Dad built a batting cage in their backyard, and tossed his kid 50 curveballs every night. The major American sports are not terribly capital intensive. And I'd say that the ones that are (figure skating, gymnastics, etc.) are often considered rather "elitist" as well.

As far as spectator participation, even though, most NBA and NFL tickets are priced far outside of the budget of most Americans as anything other than an occasional splurge, they're still available every seasonal weekend on TV, and MLB tickets are very affordable (for my local team, the Dodgers, bleachers seats are $6 last time I checked, and Upper Reserve where I sit is $17). Many of the "good seats" are still far cheaper than the Family Circle or Standing room at the Met.

Orson also had a tendency like Donald Wolfit and other 19th century actor/managers to cast non-entities around him - look at the "Macbeth" with Jeanette Nolan. This crew isn't so bad but done in by the production style and cutting. Michael McLliamoir isn't charismatic enough on screen as Iago but the Emilia of Fay Compton is fine. This film was done in bits and pieces with no budget over several years. The skimpy sets are offset by clever chiaroscuro lighting but there is a lack of supernumeries and props as well. Continuity is weird and I think the whole thing was post-dubbed. The Desdemona is a beautiful French actress, Suzanne Cloutier who has no clue with Shakespearean dialogue. She is dubbed but I can't tell if she does her own voice or if it is someone else.

I think it is Suzanne Cloutier's own voice. The "LA Times" did an article a while ago on the Welles "MacBeth," and as I recalled it explained that the film had to be "blind looped" (looped without benefit of the film) by the cast.

The Welles discussion reminds me of one I forgot... "Chimes at Midnight." Not all that easy to find and it's generally in terrible condition even if you can find it, but the Movie Place on 105th St. used to have a copy.

An excellent point. You made me think (perversely) of its opposite: the highly dramatic, very descriptive lines from Henry V, in the Olivier production, when Shakespeare uses a narrator to conjur images of the preparations for war in France. Olivier marries this text beautifully with film image. I love the surprising and magical transition from what had formerly been presented as a staged work enclosed in an Elizabethan theater, opening up and expanding as the camera soars out into the real world.

I don't recall who does these lines, but in Branagh's version, shot more conventionally, has a truly marvellous Derek Jacobi. Now that man CAN read Shakespeare well.

I think that the part that you are referring to (I think it's called "Chorus" in the text of the play) is played by Jacobi.

I like "10 Things I Hate About You." I like that is manages not to take itself too seriously as an adaptation, nor does it condescend to the audience. It's also one of the few adaptations of TToTS in which I honestly like all the characters as people.

I tend to prefer the Branagh "Henry V" to the Olivier version, but that may be because the cuts to the text that were required by the British government during WWII took away from the underpinnings of the story. I like the music in the Branagh version as well.

The cuts in Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" bother me a bit at times as well, although I like the film overall. I'm also very fond of the Sam Waterston version of "Much Ado" from the early 1980's (it's shown on PBS from time to time).

We must have pulled our copies off the shelf at the same moment!

Mine is thoroughly worn-out!

It's good to hear that Mueller's been working on DVD commentary. Astiare commentary has been sadly lacking, and I'd love to hear when he has to say.

"Royal Wedding" must be mentioned, I think, because it includes two of his most iconic solos, the one with a hat rack and the one where he dances around the walls and ceiling of his room.

Oh, come on... the best part of "Royal Wedding" is when Astaire and Jane Powell are sliding around the cruise ship trying to perform.

I don't think that "Royal Wedding" was anybody's best work (and Alan Jay Lerner says as much in his memoirs), but outside of the two Astaire solos, I do like Lane and Lerner's "Too Late Now." Even if you can barely see it for lack of lighting.

OACDYCSF has a gorgeous score, and I prefer Harris' version as well, but I must say Kristin Chenoweth did an excellent job in the concert version at NY Citycenter a few years ago. I think she still performs "Hurry! It's Lovely..." in concerts, and when she does it, she really has that inner glow of stardom.

I never really warmed to Eleanor Powell, but she is indeed a dazzling dancer and one of those stars who gives you the strong impression of being a thoroughly nice person.

I don't think MGM ever quite knew what to do with Eleanor Powell, either. She didn't fit into the Lana Turner/glamour girl mold, and all they seemed to be able to come up with is to set her tap-dancing on battle ships and toss her in the air. She's wonderful in her commentary at the AFI salute to Astaire, so very down-to-earth and "real."

I agree about "Pick Yourself Up' -- it's my all-time favorite thing (at the moment), and that's because it is such a turning point -- and a turning-point with several turning-points in it, such a LONG turning-point -- Ginger SMILES at him when she realizes he can dance, and it is like the sun coming out, and it has been built up to for so long, and with all that wonderful side-work with Helen Broderick and her club sandwich, and the owner of the dancing-school firing Ginger, and Fred saving the day -- silly as all the stuff at the very beginning of the movies is, with the cuffs on the pants, getting Fred out of the wedding to the girl we don't like, and all, but by the time we get to the big city the work-place Ginger is a thoroughly plausible dance-instructor modern working girl and the movie has become quite REAL, and the romance happens in the midst of all this quite plausible detail, including a little dance-school studio that's plausible as what it's supposed to be and also a wonderful place for their dance, complete with little fences to jump over.

That's a really good point. So much of what's great about Ginger Rogers is that she was both a good actress and a good (enough) dancer to make it all believable, no matter how implausible the plot of the movie.

The other thing that I really love about "Pick Yourself Up" is how after the whole rigamorale of Ginger trying to teach him to dance, the actual dance is completely constructed around the side-2-3-... side-2-3 step that she's been trying to teach him, and variations thereon. He even includes the walk across the studio! Sheer genius.

Another good reference is John Mueller's "Astaire Dancing." Mueller's rather ... uh... opinionated (I don't think he thought *any* of the people who danced with Fred were good enough for him), but he does an extremely detailed analysis of pretty much every step Astaire ever did on film complete with corresponding frames.

We will indeed have to agree to disagree here, but I would be willing to try and make a case that “Top Hat” and “Swing Time” are both superior, taken as a whole, to “The Band Wagon” - and not just as star vehicles.

We will have to agree to disagree. I can see a good argument for TH, but I can't for ST. I think ST features some of the best dancing of Fred Astaire's career, and it's my personal favorite from a dance perspective. I've seen parts of this film hundreds of times, and I never tire of it. The choreography is stellar. However, I think there are way too many problems with the script and direction for it to be considered superior to "The Bandwagon." The script is way too clunky and heavyhanded, and with 20 mins to get into the main plot, the pacing drags way too long in the beginning and other spots.

All true, sidwich, but I do think Stevens did a good job with what he was given -- it's the script, IMO. (Also, it was far from his first picture -- he'd put in a long apprenticeship with Hal Roach, and if memory serves I think Alice Adams was his first proper feature film, a few years earlier -- Hepburn insisted on him, I think.

I think you're right. For some reason, I've always though of ST as his debut, but he did do some work prior to it. My mind is clearly going...

ST is also the first of the Fred and Ginger movies where you can call Rogers a true co-star and not a leading lady. You can really see here maturing here.

Ginger Rogers has commented quite a bit on how much she liked working with George Stevens because he featured her in the film as opposed shooting everything around Fred Astaire (like say, Mark Sandrich who was brought up upthread). Dunno if that's true (the part about Sandrich), but I agree that you do see a confidence and assurance in her performance that wasn't there before, and you very much see the star in her own right that she would become. Well, before the self-consciousness in her performance that would set in.

"Damsel in Distress" is not worth much, BUT there's a trio for Fred, George Burns, and GRACIE ALLEN that has to be seen -- since Gracie was at least as dead-pan funny as a dancer as she was talking. I'd never seen it in any of the documentaries

There's a lot of great Gershwin music in DiD, like a "A Foggy Day" and yet another great solo with drums in "Nice Work if you Can Get It." And Burns and Allen are hilarious as always. I'm a big fan of PG Wodehouse as well who wrote the original novel and worked on the script. It's actually a really nice film except for the fact that for some totally unexplained reason a very, very young Joan Fontaine was cast as the lead, and she absolutely can not dance, and it's kind of surreally interesting to watch Fred Astaire struggle with a leading lady who can barely put one foot in front of the other.

sidwich, that’s true in one sense, and the interesting thing to me is that you can have all those things and still come up with a picture that’s not his best. For me, as an Astaire fan, I like to see a supporting cast that complements but doesn’t upstage and dance routines and a story that showcase Fred and his partner to best advantage. If I have to trade in Minnelli and Comden and Green for Mark Sandrich and Dwight Taylor to get what’s best for Fred, I’ll do that.

I think part of what's interesting about "The Bandwagon" is it's not the film that showcases Astaire to absolutely the best advantage (although I think that "Dancing in the Dark" is one of the best things he did without Ginger Rogers). Yes, that would probably be one of the RKO films, probably TH. However, I think that it's the film that works the best as an overall film, not just as a Fred Astaire film. Fred is one piece of the film, as opposed to being the centerpiece that everything is built around. That's just my opinion, though.

The 2 movies with Hayward -- well, You Were Never Lovelier is the stupidest thing there EVER was, unbearable even compared to Down Argentine Way (which is also a must-see for the NICHOLAS BROTHERS 5 minutes of glory), but the dance by that name is as great as Cheek to Cheek, and Hayward adds another dimension altogether -- she's like an orchid, just unbelievably beautiful, with a musicality of her own that's hard to describe but just astonishes you, like Suzanne Farrell's in a way

Yes, Rita Hayworth is lovely, but I don't think there's a dance routine to the title tune of "You Were Never Lovelier." You're probably thinking of the piece to "I'm Old-Fashioned" which is gorgeous. I think the routine to "You Were Never Lovelier" was shot (there are pictures) but cut from the film before release. And I've heard that Fred Astaire privately considered Rita Hayworth the favorite of his dance partners, although that may be partly because she was the daughter of his vaudeville idols, the Cansinos.

If you have time, 'Finian's Rainbow,' his last, is a beautiful movie with Petula Clark charming as his daughter

But while this may be his most engaging film role, he does no dancing . . . NO DANCING . . . here.

He does dance in 'Finian's Rainbow,' just not in the full, detailed way he did when he was younger. Or at least he moves musically through the big 'Look to the Rainbow' opening while everybody else is dancing. If he's not dancing in that number, then I suppose nobody else is either. It's just that dance-wise he does not do the kind of intricate, technical thing he is well-known and celebrated for, so it is not representative, and probably useful only if you have seen all the Rogers and Charisse and some other things.

Astaire *does* dance in "Finnian's Rainbow." It's not that long, but in "When the Idle Poor, Become the Idle Rich," Astaire has a solo that's perhaps a minute and a half or two minutes long. And no, it's definitely not representative, but considering that FR came out in 1969, I think, and he would have been 70 years old at the time... well, yeah.

The story goes that when Astaire signed on to FR, he insisted that there be no dancing for his character, but when it came time to shoot, he decided he needed to do *something* or else people were going to think he was dead.

And as for my $0.02 on FR... it's not a good movie. It was directed by a very young Francis Ford Coppola on the cheap and it shows. The source material is also very problematic. It doesn't age well even though it boasts one of the greatest scores in Broadway history. Fred is Fred and charming as always... and that's about it for the movie.

'Ninotchka' is the only Garbo film I've never cared for, and I've always been mystified why she got herself stuck with Melvyn Douglas so frequently. I thought he began to show his true potential in 'Two-Faced Woman', that being that he is the opposite of a leading man. When you see him later in 'My Forbidden Past,' with Robert Mitchum (a leading man if ever there was one) and Ava Gardner, he has developed this uncharismatic persona still further.

I don't care for "Ninotchka" either, although I'm a big fan of both Ernst Lubtisch and Billy Wilder. I do like Melvyn Douglas however. I think he was a good actor and a very fine straight man to many of the great screwball comediennes of the period like Irene Dunne in "Theodora Goes Wild" which is one of my favorites.

If you’re seeing one of the classic pictures such as “Top Hat” for the first time, however, I would recommend watching the movie as a whole before clicking around in it, because one of the many felicities of TH, for example, is the way the musical numbers are integrated into the story – not in the sometimes clunkier fashion of later “naturalistic” musicals, but in graceful and witty style. I’d call the plot of “Top Hat” slight rather than silly, following the French farces from which it derives, and well suited to its purpose. (The story line of “Swing Time,” IMO, is just plain dumb, although the dances and songs are delectable.)

Yes, TH works well as an overall movie, something very much of the great screwball period of the 1930s and early 1940s. "Swing Time," I think suffers a bit from being helmed by a relatively young George Stevens (Sr.) in his directorial debut. However, I do think that it's worth watching ST once all the way through to appreciate the progression of the choreography throughout the film. "Pick Yourself Up" is my all-time favorite Astaire/Rogers piece, and I don't think you can quite fully appreciate it unless you see what happens in the first 20 mins of the movie (okay, it's a LONG 20 mins, but it's worth it). The Astaire/Pan choreography builds throughout the film to climax in "Never Gonna Dance" which draws on all the pieces throughout the film, and is truly spectacular.

A couple of lesser known titles that I happen to like: “The Sky’s the Limit” which has some fine Astaire solo work. He partners the inexperienced Joan Leslie with sensitivity, and there’s a ravishing song, “My Shining Hour.” “The Belle of New York,” which induced Astaire to retire in order to avoid making it, has considerable charm in retrospect.

There's some great music in TSTL, and one of my favorite not-so-famous solos in "One for my Baby" (when Astaire is dancing in the glass, it's really glass, not sugar-glass which was unavailable due to WWII sugar rations). I'm not so fond of Joan Leslie in the film though, and it's one I'd FF through much of.

I prefer Vera-Ellen with Astaire in "Three Little Words" which I think is an overall better film than TBoNY even though it's technically an MGM "B" musical, i.e. produced by Jack Cummings rather than Arthur Freed. She's a little "precious" for me as a partner for Astaire, and the storyline of TBoNY only exacerbates it. I think Gene Kelly brought out more from her in "On the Town" or Donald O'Connor in "Call Me Madam" (choreography by Bob Alton).

I would love to be able to agree with you, sidwich, that Lucille Bremer is underrated, but I can’t. A classic example of non-star material. I always found her dancing to be competent, but wooden. I liked her as the big sister in “Meet Me in St. Louis,” though.

Yeah, LB was never going to be a star no matter how much LB Mayer and Arthur Freed tried to push her... too remote a screen presence, I think. I think she was a good partner for Astaire, though. To me, she's one of the overall best dance partners of the post-Ginger period, better chemistry than Powell, better technician than Hayworth.

I'm afraid I'm not that crazy about The Band Wagon. I love Jack Buchanan, "Dancing in the Dark," and Nanette Fabray, in that order, but I don't like what I take to be the subtext of the movie -- that art and entertainment are hopelessly opposed to each other and musicals shouldn't try to be serious. Yes, I laughed at Buchanan's speeches about The Theatah and the bits about the Faust show that's a terrible bomb, but I still didn't care for the joke. I also thought the way the script alluded to Astaire's real life career in a rather distasteful way -- he was a good sport to go along with it. And the revue numbers that should be the climax of the movie are letdowns for me -- the best routines are in the first part of the picture.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the Comden and Green screenplay is one of the best Fred got to work with in his career, and definitely the best of the MGM period. The only other one that comes close is the Ephrons' screenplay for "Daddy Long Legs" and unfortunately that's just not as good a film (Fred Astaire meets Roland Petit just didn't quite work for me, sorry). There are some not so great aspects... Minnelli couldn't pull a great performance out of Cyd Charisse, and the juxtaposition of Fred Astaire and Michael Kidd choreography gets a little weird at times, but overall, I think the combination of screenplay, director, supporting cast, music, etc. on balance is the best of his career.

There are quite a few inside jokes in "The Bandwagon," though. It's not necessary to "get" them to enjoy the film, but it probably helps a bit.

papeetepatrick, I also have to dissent respectfully about Silk Stockings. "The Ritz Roll and Rock" is a low point for Astaire and Cole Porter both. On the plus side, there's Paige, as you note, and the lovely number Charisse does alone in her hotel room.

I like "Fated to Be Mated," but I don't think "Silk Stockings" quite works either. A lot of the creative team were at the end of their careers (Astaire, Lorre, director Rouben Mamoulian, and Cole Porter), and the film looks a little tired. Unlike Minnelli, Rouben Mamoulian was able to pull a pretty good performance out of Cyd Charisse, though.

Anyone have any good recommendations on Fred Austaire films that show him at his dancing best?

There are bunches to choose from and while I'd like to watch him dance, I don't have that much free time.

Thanks

Not sure if this is the best forum, but here goes:

The RKO years (1932-1939) i.e. the Ginger Rogers years:

Top Hat (the peak)

Swing Time (perhaps their best from a dance perspective, although not quite as good an overall film)

Post-Ginger (1940-1946)

The Broadway Melody of 1940 (the overall film is weak, but the work with Eleanor Powell is glorious. Probably the only of his female partners that could really keep up with him. Part of this is featured in Frank Sinatra's segment in "That's Entertainment!").

You Were Never Lovelier (probably the best of the post-Ginger films, featuring the personal favorite of his dance partners, Rita Hayworth)

Ziegfeld Follies ("This Heart of Mine" and "Limehouse Blues," Lucille Bremer never became a star, but I think she was underrated as one of his partners. Also features the only piece Astaire ever did with Gene Kelly, "The Babbitt and the Bromide).

Blue Skies (one of his buddy-picture movies with Bing Crosby. Not a favorite, but worth seeing for "Puttin' on the Ritz" which might be his single greatest work. I think it was intended to be his swan song. Fred retired to raise racehorses from 1946-48).

The Second Coming:MGM (1948-1958)

Easter Parade-maybe not one of his greatest from a dance perspective, although there's some interesting work in it, and it's a little strange since it was intended to be a Gene Kelly vehicle. But I like it. So there.

The Bandwagon-One of the greatest musicals of all time, directed by Vincent Minnelli, and definitely Astaire's best film from an overall perspective.

Television: I don't know if these are easily findable, but Astaire also did a series of specials for television which are very interesting since they feature Barrie Chase, a very well-trained dancer as his partner. Some of them came out as a a box set a while ago, and they're also available at the Museum of Television and Radio. Very worth seeing if you can find them.

ETA: I would also recommend the PBS specials that carbro mentions above, and also say that although I picked a few of my favorites, I think throughout the canon, Astaire's work is almost always worth seeing and studying. Even when the rest of the film is sadly, sadly lacking (say, 1950's "Let's Dance" which you couldn't pay me to sit through), Astaire's work in is well worth watching (and in that case, it's one of his most memorable solos).

I forgot to mention one strange thing that occurred to me about all of the ABT Apollos I just saw. One of my favorite moments is the starburst image and I don’t think they did it well. I was sitting in the side arms for all 3 performances so it could have been due to the seats, but I doubt it. I was on the right (odd numbered ) side the first 2 times and I know that’s not the best angle for a good view of the starburst but I sat on the left side for the last performance and the visual still didn’t cut it.

I have a center seat for Thursday so if they’re doing it properly I should be able to see the full effect. Did anyone else notice this, or was it just my angle that distorted the image?

I was at both the Saturday matinee and evening performances of Apollo, and in neither performance did the starburst come off very well. I was on the right side for the matinee, but center for the evening performance, so I don't think it was solely an issue of the angle at least in the evening.

I also noticed the tepid reaction to the Stravinsky bill, and it was disappointing. Many of the audience members around me left after Apollo, especially at the matinee.

Ferri and Bocca are two dancers of whom I have many, many fond memories of, both together and separately. When I heard Bocca was retiring this year, I invested in the print of them together in Manon, even though it is one ballet that I have not seen them perform (if I were in NY at the time, I would definitely go this year).

I was however at his farewell performance of Romeo a couple of years ago. Yes, there were a couple of baubles in the lifts that were not there a few years earlier, but there was such magic in the performance, such a rare and wonderful thing. I remember Bocca took a final curtain call at the end for himself, and you could feel such the love and affection of the audience for him. He brought Ferri out at the end to share it with him, and it was just such a wonderful moment.

I just wanted to comment that I saw the Wednesday evening of Corsaire with David Hallberg and Gillian Murphy, Stella Abrera and Jose Manuel Carreno as Ali. The performance was originally scheduled to feature Ethan Stiefel as Conrad, and it was clear that Hallberg has seen Stiefel perform many times because there were a few moments in Act I when I thought I was watching Stiefel perform it again.

But I have to say that this was one of the most enjoyable Corsaire performances I have been at in a while. The entire cast seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the Indiana Jones/Saturday matinee silliness of the ballet, and having memories of Murphy as a technically brilliant but rather expressionless odalisque a while ago, I was very pleasantly surprised by her characterization of Medora as a free-spirited and mischievious young woman. Her rapport with David Hallberg was palpable, and were I in NY at the time, I would definitely try to see their performance of Cinderella later on in the season.

If only the ballet Gods had also thrilled us by casting Other Dances with Vishneva and Bocca...

Indeed, that would have been something to see! As it was, I was very glad to have timed trip to NY this year to be able to see both of them. I particularly appreciated seeing the expressiveness of Bocca's dancing one last time.

I don't have very much to add, but I did want to comment that Wiles' Sylvia excerpt was much improved from Orange County a few weeks ago. Much greater confidence and attack in her performance.