Old Fashioned

Do you think that Part's talents could perhaps be better served in a smaller, chamber-sized company, i.e., be the undisputed 'prima' of a smaller company, rather than fighting through the ranks of yet another mega-troupe?

What chamber-sized company could contain her talent? It hasn't really worked for Monique Meunier, and I don't think it will work for Part. She could go the Sylve route and be a nomadic ballerina of sorts, but she doesn't seem to be the type who could handle that kind of demand.

Clothes and buildings fulfill a utilitarian function as well as a potentially aesthetic one, and if the latter is privileged over the former that would seem to be a pretty serious flaw.

Regardless of wearability (is that a word?), there are so many outfits on the runway that simply don't look right anywhere else, not even on celebrities on the red carpet.

This discussion has gotten me to thinking about architecture in addition to haute couture. Is architecture an art? Or a craft??

Architecture is studied extensively in art history courses, so I've always assumed architecture is (or can be) art.

Is haute cuisine art? Is ventriloquism art (as the winner of America's Got Talent called it)?

I don't think she would have had much of a shot in any case, if the film were still in Mandarin [...] I don't think films from East Asia generally make it onto the Academy's radar as candidates for major awards. Non-English speaking Western Europe is barely there (Cotillard's win was the first for a foreign-language speaking actress since Sophia Loren)

There's a first for everything. I find it remarkable that Cotillard did receive the nom and win because of her performance in a foreign film and language, but I don't see how an Asian film spoken in Mandarin could have made less of an impression, especially with the recent phenomenon of interest in Asian cinema (Crouching Tiger, Flying Daggers, Curse of the Golden Flower, etc). Cotillard simply had better press surrounding her performance. Lust Caution was panned by some prominent critics. I would have attributed Tang Wei's lack of recognition as something to do with this being her first film performance, but then there have been a number of Academy nominations for first timers and some who have won. Sometimes the Academy does like to seek out someone outside of the Hollywood mainstream and "discover" newcomers.

To tell you the truth, the only reason I think "Lust, Caution" got the attention it did is because Ang Lee has had success in English language, Hollywood films.

The miniscule attention it did receive in the US was because of its NC-17 rating, and the press probably thought it would make a shocking news bulletin because of Lee's status as a director.

The only Asian actress I can think of that's made it onto the mainstream radar in the U.S. is Zhang Ziyi, and that's mainly because she's so "Western pretty."

Or maybe because she had the opportunity to make it? There are many pretty girls from where she comes from (as there are here), and some mainstream celebrities here are only famous because they're pretty. It's the ones who have the opportunity for exposure that become famous.

Other known Asian actors are Michelle Yeoh, Lucy Liu, Sandra Oh, Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat, and to a lesser extent Tony Leung, Maggie Cheung, and Joan Chen (not as mainstream but still well known among the indie/foreign film buffs).

Of the films that I've seen in the Best Actor category, Depp and Day-Lewis were both over the top, although their respective films arguably require that sort of characterization. Viggo Mortensen gave the subtlest and most convincing performance.

For Best Actress, I've only seen La Vie en Rose, so I didn't have much of an opinion in that category. I'm happy that Cotillard won, even though I wasn't enamored with the movie. If Tang Wei in Lust, Caustion had been nominated I would have rooted for her (was the film disqualified for all categories or just Best Foreign Language Film?).

I sat through the entire show and thought it was mildly entertaining, even though I wished Stewart had better material to work with. Some moments were just too awkward or tense; I usually expect that with acceptance speeches from non-actor/non-performers, but some presenters were downright awful. Why would you announce that you're not good at something and appear visibly nervous afterwards?

The dresses at this year's Oscars seemed to be more homogeneous than usual--there were plenty of dramatic reds (loved all the ones I saw--Hathaway's, Klum's, Mirren's, Heigl's), feathers, and asymmetrical one-shoulder styles. One of my least favorite looks was Kidman's; her hairstyle made her overlarge forehead look even bigger, and she wore an unflattering neckline and fussy necklace.

I guess it's all her voice in the songs, though, isn't it?

According to the latest Newsweek, the voice behind Cotillard is actually Jil Aigrot. A clip of Cotillard singing Milord with French pop star Jenifer (?) can be found on youtube. It's definitely not her voice in the movie.

I read somewhere that Joanne Woodward is a fan. I think the Newman's Own Foundation may have even made some charitable donations...

Thanks for sharing. He was one of my favorites at Houston.

dirac said:

I saw Lust, Caution recently and it was excellent. The reviews that I saw beforehand were middling, but as the reviewers seemed for the most part to be focused too intently on thinking up endless variations on lines like ‘Too much caution, not enough lust’ or the reverse to actually say much about the film, I ignored them and went. Synopses of the plot are readily available so I won’t bother, but suffice it to say that Tony Leung Kar-Wai and Tang Wei are marvelous (he gets top billing, but it’s her movie; she carries the story and is in almost every scene), the movie looks great, and the running time of almost three hours is not that big a deal and I don’t understand the many complaints. Ang Lee takes his time, we all know this, relax and watch. (I did think that three hours might have allowed for a little more political context than we get.) The plot is cousin to “Notorious,” only this time the Claude Rains character is a hot number. The sex, and there’s less of it than you might have been led to expect, is graphic but crucial; without it there’s almost no movie.

Thank you for bringing this up. I saw the movie a few weeks ago and hardly a day goes by without me thinking about some aspect of the film. It's left quite an impression on me, and anyone who has the chance should go out to see it. I also think the sex scenes are crucial, although they will probably keep the film from receiving wider release. Tang Wei is excellent, and I'm glad this "unknown" was chosen over other leading Chinese actresses who reportedly coveted the role. Some people believed this movie would further explore the atrocities that occurred during the Japanese occupation of China during WWII but the film contains remarkably little political agenda in it. Ang Lee remains a master story teller who chooses to focus on the love story rather than a wider portrayal of the times.

I was talking with a friend yesterday who is very knowledgeable about film and we both seemed to think that maybe Katharine Hepburn and Deborah Kerr had the biggest ranges (probably should include Vanessa Redgrave too), and he said he didn't think, though, that Kerr had ever played a bitch

I must disagree, respectfully, with you and your friend about Hepburn’s range; she had, IMO, one of the narrowest ranges of any of the great stars who were also distinguished actors. That’s not necessarily a Bad Thing, of course.

Dorothy Parker didn't think Hepburn had a great range, either.

Sorry for coming into the discussion late. I will remember Kerr for her roles in Quo Vadis and From Here to Eternity; I don't think I've seen anything else she has starred in. She was one of the great beauties of the 20th century, and probably one of the most overlooked.

If anyone (like me) was wondering whatever happened to Ms Volochkova, she seems to be appearing in a reality TV show in which celebrities learn to ice dance.

Clips of her in "Ice Age" (the name of the show) are available on YouTube. Her partner is Anton Sikharulidze.

I wonder if they are already married?

That update was actually awhile ago. In any case, best wishes to the engaged/newly weds!

I'm not positive, but I think that Moulton shows up on a PBS show that's got Christopher Kimball (??), editor of Cook's Illustrated (or, as a friend puts it, "the magazine for anal-retentive cooks")

Don't know about Cook's Illustrated, or anal-retentive cooks, but I still wish FN kept Moulton (is she still executive chef for Gourmet?). Her show was a bit on the dull side, but she had great recipes and I learned a lot from Sara's Secrets. I could do without FN's current deluge of travel shows. Isn't that what the Travel Channel is for? Apparently they didn't think RR's $40s a Day and Tasty Travels was enough so they gave Giada Weekend Getaways, Flay Throwdown, and Guy Fieri Diners, Drives, and Inns. Their basic cooking shows have become distastefully lowbrow. Even the wonderful addition of Nigella Lawson to their lineup didn't help. I really have not been keeping up with FN lately, but when I used to watch it on a daily basis I could only watch her show at some obscure noon-ish hour on Sunday, when I'm usually out. It's all about making everything easier, quicker, and understandable to the "common" folk now. I didn't watch the last season of The Next Food Network Star, but I heard that in one episode the producers judging a contestant criticized her for using French words. Maybe some of us don't know what chicken en cocotte is, but the point of having a cooking show is to enlighten an otherwise unknowing audience. God knows what they would do to Julia Child if she walked into that studio today.

In addition there are 18 photos from the ABT production of Manon, but not from last summer, as her partner here is Volodya Malakhov.

http://www.geneschiavone.com/gallery/album28

In one photo (where she is in arabesque) she looks a lot like Leslie Caron in Gigi.

Begging the guilty part, I've been slurping up the Food Channel recently (pun mostly intended) and think Alton Brown is a fun, fun guy.

yes and informative too!

on the other hand, rachel ray makes me want to stab myself, or my tv! ;)

Couldn't agree more. AB's Good Eats is the best show on that network, and Ina Garten's is a good traditional cooking show. I find myself turning more to the PBS shows now for food (Lidia, Jacques, and Ming are my cooking triumvirate) because I try to avoid Rachael Ray, Sandra Lee, or Giada de Laurentiis and whatever new chick they have in that mold for Hispanic cuisine. What happened to the chefs that actually taught me what good food should be and didn't condescend my intelligence? Bring back Mario and Sara Moulton!

Concerning lyrical dancers, the seamless phrasing is something they can carry even into bravura choreography

I would cite Moira Shearer's dancing in Tales of Hoffman as an example of this.

THe women of the Bolshoi Ballet have a remarkable, highly stylized placement of the fingers that I've never seen elsewhere -- the fingers extend, almost to the point of curving BACK, but the whole hand is held like a tight budded flower, so it looks like a slender tulip. It's actually very beautiful, and the more you study it the stranger but lovelier it becomes.

Is this an example of what you're talking about? I wonder if any particular classical hand position could have been adapted from folk dance. Nina's right hand in the photograph looks very oriental to me. With the fingers extended back like that and the fingers spread apart, it looks like a common hand position used in traditional Chinese dance, except the thumb would be touching the middle finger.

That particular claw/petal formation of the hands and fingers has been a major complaint of classical ballet teachers since it began and has been politely referred to as choreographic. It doesn't extend the arm's line and really transforms the line of the arm into a line segment - as does severely breaking the wrist. The classical school wisdom that I always heard was that if you are doing anything that truncates the line of the arm, you are engaging in someone's choreography. Same holds true for winging the feet.

If the fingers are extended out further yet still maintain some curvature, I think the position can be lovely and I don't think it breaks the arm's line. It's the wrist position that breaks it.

Sometimes the pointer finger can be raised too high. It's not really fair to judge from a photograph since dancing should allow for fluidity in the movement of the hands, but I've seen some dancers that exaggerate the position of the finger too often.

Regarding Van Hamel, the first time I saw that video that was the first thing I noticed: how expressive and delicate her hands are! And personally, I don't see a huge difference between her hands and the supposed "choreographic" hands...her fingers are held relatively far apart.

I don't know what Giselle's dress should look like, but I've seen one that had a sheer fabric covering the bosom. Maybe the theater audience couldn't tell, but on video the dancer's breasts could be clearly seen through the top. Perhaps I'm being prudish, but I would prefer Giselle to display a bit more modesty.

Another comment on hands, not related to ballet. I remember reading somewhere (it was either John Mueller or Arlene Croce, can't remember) that Fred Astaire would pull in his middle and ring fingers in an attempt to hide the large size of his hands.

I remember reading Patty McBride recalling how Balanchine told her to carry a red ball around in her hand while doing barre to achieve the correct placement of her fingers. Does this really work?

According to Suki Schorer's book, the ball is used on younger SAB students for them to get a feel for the curved position of the hand that Balanchine preferred. In this position, the pinky is raised higher than the others, and the middle finger comes closest to the thumb, which is not hidden but curved towards the other fingers. Vrsfanatic is right in saying one school's hand position would be reviled by another. I've invariably heard this hand position called rose petals or claws.

It would be great to hear people's stories of what "the classics" mean to them now -- and how they were introduced to them duirng their earlier education. For some of us this process began long ago. For others, it's been more recent. I wonder how much things have changed.

Canbelto's remarks made me think of my own experience back in the Dark Ages. We worked our way "up" to Hamlet, which was done only in the 4th year. (I say "done," because it was analysed to death. Fortunately, I'd already seen a production in NYC. I don't know what young people thought who had only the printed page(s) to go by.)

Your suggestions, canbelto, come close to what we had in school long ago. As I recall it was:

1st year and 2nd years: Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, but I don't know in what order. I remember being much assisted by the Classic Comics version at the time.

3rd year: Julius Caesar (put on by the drama department) and scenes from Much Ado about Nothing

4th year: Hamlet, scenes from The Tempest, and a selection of sonnets and things

Othello I knew from Limon's The Moor's Pavane and (for some reason) frequent replays of the Orson Welles film on local television.

Each year we were required to memorize several soliloquies or dialogues. Mine included Polonius's advise to Laertes ("And these few precepts in thy memory look thou character.") and Prospero's epilogue ("Now my charms are all o'erthrown.") Even then I seemed to be type cast as an old man.

And this was just an ordinary suburban high school. It seems like another universe. Are such things still presented in this way nowadays?

Sounds similar to what I went through in high school.

Is it worth seeing?

I agree. One (I can't remember which) was released before the other, but I found them on tv at approximately the same time. In situations like this, the actors are the sources of the most immediately noticeable differences. I like "Valmont's" Annette Bening and Colin Firth, who conveyed a civilized kind of evil -- both delicious and repellent -- well beyond the more contrived peformances of Glenn Close and John Malkovich, who is even more mannered than usual in this one. The secondary roles in "Valmont" are equally well-cast, with skilled British actors predominating. The "Dangerous Liaisons" team -- including Swoozie Kurtz, Uma Thurman, and Keanu Reeves -- seem imported from another universe.

Forman started his movie earlier, but the shooting took a while, and Frears completed his first, and "Dangerous Liaisons" was the earlier to be released. "Vamont" has a tendency to meander, but I think I like it a bit more. Forman commented at the time that no scene in the book actually appears in the film, and I think he's less inhibited by the parameters of the source material. I find the Frears film overly literal.

Hmm...I think I'm the only one here who adores both Close and Malkovich, and the Frears' movie.

A jazz giant has passed away. I first discovered this earlier today when I was browsing the CNN website. The headline didn't include his name, but I somehow sensed it was him, even though I hoped it wasn't. He will be greatly missed.

Max Roach, a Founder of Modern Jazz, Dies at 83