grace

i haven't seen a lot of opera - indeed NONE in the last 10 years - so my frame of reference is out of date, but i immediately thought of kathleen battle. she always reminded me of fonteyn.

OK that's good - but i was more thinking of this as an issue that's going to come up, for any of us, in future...which probably wouldn't have come up in the ballet area...

very well thought out, Basilo!

this is a plug for the new zealand film Whale Rider. it's nothing to do with dance! BUT: i DO think it has relevance to young female ballet students - or any young females - as it's 'about' a young girl/woman discovering her own power. it's wonderfully uplifting (although also a liitle weepy). the scenery is beautiful, the acting sincere- especially from the little girl. i recommend it. just one warning: the opening scene, of a woman in childbirth, is the MOST harrowing in the whole film, and may not be suitable for children under about 13.

BW - "BBC sorts of productions": i know what you mean, and you are right that it IS a BBC "sort" but i THINK it was ITN: 'same diff' ! ;) you have reminded me of a COMPLETELY different subject, which ought to be a new thread...so i'll go and make one, for the new zealand movie, Whale Rider.

interesting piece of information. but what do you mean about shirley maclaine - does she have alzheimer's? :confused:

oh yes! - my beautiful 16 yo niece got her photo taken with matthew perry, standing alone, 'couple-like', last christmas at an LA hotel. her family and he happened to be at the same catered christmas lunch 'do' (sorry for the bad grammar), and he was apparently completely normal, FRIEND-ly (sorry again!) and approachable, about conversation and the like. i admit to being a bit overawed by THAT, and am amazed that she wasn't bragging and showing it to everyone! i saw it in their christmas photos, and thought that her date looked at bit 'old' for her... nothing to do with dance - sorry.

i'd agree with you on that, farrell fan. carbro - LOVELY story about danilova. i am NOT overawed by meeting dancers. (i have met lots, including 'big names' - as have quite a few posters here, i believe.) EXCEPTIONS (i.e. the times i WAS overawed): - i WOULD have been overawed by dudinskaya, Mme. Hermine ...but the opportunity didn't come up! (from my teacher's perspective, i regard her as a teaching legend, more so than as a dancer.) - when i was young i got fonteyn's autograph, but i was too embarrassed to say it was for me, so i said it was for my sister, when handing the programme over to an assistant. DIDN'T see fonteyn herself, at the time. - only time i recall being overawed by meeting someone 'famous' was when i worked at a 'new age' fair in covent garden, and kylie minogue came in, apparently un-noticed. she came straight up to my counter (i was selling swarowski cut-crystal hanging window ornaments), stayed about 5 minutes selecting things, and we exchanged a few lines - but i deliberately acted like she was just anyone else, for her sake, as she was clearly trying to just 'be normal'. when she told me she was looking for gifts, as she was going home to australia for christmas, i SHOULD have had the presence of mind to say "i should be so lucky...lucky, lucky, lucky...", (since she had acknowledged that she recognised my australian accent) - but it only occured to me AFTERWARDS. damn! ;)

i've just tried that website again, and while none of the links work, there IS a full page of interview with the researcher/author, on the home page. here are some of the relevant extracts: nice note to end on.alexandra: this topic has already raised ANOTHER new issue for me, with regard to the LITERATURE/READING forum. when discussing adult books, one can very quickly find oneself mentioning things which one MIGHT not want being talked about, on a ballet site which is read by young teens...i believe i have skirted around the detail, but i imagine this sort of thing will come up again, in this forum...what are the rules for such things? :confused:

no - i haven't. but i think i've seen it advertised, so i'll keep an eye out for it. BW - yes - i think i recall seeing that, too!

i meant to say that there is a little slide show of 3 or 4 pictures there, if you click on the link below the photo.

ed, i have avoided the books BECAUSE the TV series was SO well-done, that i didn't want the images from the book to compete with the images i already have. you're right that the city of oxford plays a large part, as does the milieu of academia, and the english countryside, and also, serious MUSIC... ed, i hope that, if you see any of these, you enjoy them.

it read that way, to me.

sure. understood, alexandra. that was a bad choice of words on my part. i was trying to distinguish between some of the words used in the fitness industry, like power, strength, stamina, fitness, short-burst, fast-twitch, slow-twitch muscle fibre type 'builds', etc etc - but wanting to avoid using the wrong one (because i forget all the definitions), so i tried making up a term. mistake! i guess i mean a kind of stable power - no, that's not much good either. hmmm...maybe later... ;)

WOW! 106 'Views' and so far, not 1 response...

thanks, vagansmom. interesting.

WOW! you guys are great! sorry that i haven't been able to find this thread for a few days (i did something silly with my computer...long story). anyway - these are right on the money. yes, Ari - she has read all of amy tan's books and yes, that is just the right sort of stuff. although she reads widely, i recognise the names of what she has. kate B - helene hanff would be just right too, if we both hadn't enjoyed these many years ago, so you, too, are on the right track. floss - isn't 'A Fortunate Life' a remarkable book? (yes, we both have read it, but i agree with you, that it is amazing and suitable). most of these other posts include some names which i am UNfamiliar with, which probably means that they make a good list of things she should start requesting from the library. thank you very much a few other comments: 1. if i could just get her to upgrade her modem and/or computer ( a powermac), and not be so negative about not 'needing' to be online...she could renew with her ISP, and post her OWN responses. that would really brighten her up, but i bet i can't do it! 2. alexandra & others: it's not so much that she's a prude, but more that she has always been of the view (that i share) that ALL media is stuff which one can allow into one's brain, or not. and that one's brain BECOMES the sum total of what we allow in. so, it's worth being careful. especially if you want to retain a positive outlook in a scary, often ugly world. 3. if she ever does get online again, and i recomend her to this forum, i'll have to delete this thread, so she's not embarrassed by 'public exposure'. 4. this brings up another possible consideration: alexandra - you said yourself, in the intro to this forum about books, that this forum has/need have NOTHING to do with ballet. BUT: do you actually want to invite in here, NEW people who have little or no interest in ballet - but who love books (like my mother, and other friends of hers i can think of.)... ...thinking: 2 websites, 2 'jobs' for you, 2 fundraising requirements, possible conflicts between up-to-now very friendly 'clientele' who DO have something in common & new people who don't, etc etc... what do you think? ('we' should make that a new thread, shouldn't 'we'?)

i don't know WHAT's been going on with my computer, because after i posted this thread the other day, it appeared that i had lost it...i went in to edit it and it wasn't there...not anywhere. and there are plenty of other 'new' threads i am seeing today, that i haven't been able to 'get' over the last week - even though, from the dates, i can see that they WERE there. actually: the penny has dropped. i HAVE just realised WHY this happened to me - so now will try to get around that problem, in future. (it's a long story...) anyway, i am glad that i didn't lose it, and glad to see people have been responding. and, after the first few posts from people who feel very differently...very pleased to see that i am not a total freak. farrell fan, victoria, carbro and amandaNYC: thanks for understanding! BW - i too miss john thaw *&* inspector morse, as if he(they) had been a very good neighbour... shame he died so soon (both).

very interesting posts. i like Mme. Hermine's first response. with your comment, alexandra, about RB and RDB, old & new styles of training, and the results- i would argue that the type of dancer 'we' (the general audience) expect and require and find attractive these days, must almost inevitably be 'weaker' than the old - in terms of kind of ox-like power. individuals - then and now - may be faster, looser, bendier, jumpier, whatever-er! - BUT, the fashion now dictates - a type of body, - AND a range of skills, - AND a degree of flexibility which, together, add up to a dancer whose body is inherently weaker than the type of body that was acceptable/desirable in the 1940's and 1950's. of course, this is a broad generalisation, but i think THAT's where the truth lies, of the point you are getting at - NOT with the adequacy of the teachers, or with the adequacy of the training methods.

sorry, su-lian that i didn't see your post. the truth is that i completely forgot about these benesh threads, when they were no longer coming up if i clicked my 'View New Posts' button. will commence again sometime soon, i promise. thanks for your interest.

wonderful contributions. thank you again, melodies.

any long-term health consequences, mbjerk? - NOT from the dog biscuits (which, by the way, are jolly expensive, now!) - but from the general malnutrition?

front row, first tier, NOT right on centre! like to see patterns, so don't like being in stalls/orchestra. don't like to be looking up at feet, or up dresses (!), so i especially don't like to be RIGHT down the front, IN the stalls/orchestra (i wish ballet companies would realise this, for critics...)...then again, apparently the preceding one to me had a fear of heights, so preferred to be downstairs! why don't i like to be centre (i hear victoria asking me...) ? : it's too confronting, too "in your face".

AND a follow-up, with somewhat happier news (thanks, Ari): to read more (& see a pic): http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/ma...ily/6103978.htm

a 'hybrid' review of a 'hybrid' giselle, apparently... even apart from this spelling, which i've never seen before, of the names of 'Moina and Zulma', this review is quite an oddity... octavio roca in the SF Chronicle describes stanislavsky ballet's giselle in the most opposing combination of terms i've ever come across in a ballet review - which shows well how ANY company can extract those shouting 2 or 3-word promo lines for their next bill: - "must be seen", - "one of the world's most exciting", - "an impressive spectacle ", - "a rare gem of dramatic ballet". can you believe that the review which says: ALSO says: - "Stanislavsky's "Giselle" ... cannot be called a success" - "heavily cut, oddly edited and curiously unmoving at the close" - "the mime is anachronistic" - "a very much a by-the-numbers "Giselle" ... see for yourself at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../16/DD97188.DTL as a reviewer, i prefer to be positive, and i am all in favour of giving credit where credit is due. it's (all too) frequently NECESSARY to make the point that x, y or z was wonderful, while p, q & r were crap...but: i can't decide whether this review has done a fine job of balancing things out - or gone WAY too far... what do you think?