canbelto

Just a note: I checked the Kennedy Center website and there is some reshuffling in terms of casting. Vishneva/Ivanchenko are now scheduled for opening night and then Friday Jan 16, while Somova/Sarafanov have been moved to the Saturday Jan 17 evening performance.

If a movie is well-done, you wouldn't have to convince the audience of Apollo's significance. The audience would be invested enough in Balanchine, and the drama-filled backstage world of the Ballet Russes, to know that Mr. B has "made it big" by the end of the movie. Lifar could be played as the company's preening egotistical star, Diaghilev as the tyrannical boss, Danilova as the love interest. It could have a brief afterwards that says "George went on to become the greatest choreographer of the 20th century. Diaghilev died suddenly in 1929." And so on.

I'd rather see a Balanchine movie of his early years. His time at the Mariinsky, him experimenting with his own choreography and getting rejected by TPTB, him striking out on his own and joining the Ballet Russes. The movie could end with the premiere of Apollo, the Ballet That Changed The World. I feel like the later stuff would be more soap opera-ish, and not necessarily more interesting. I'd love to see what a good writer could do with Diaghilev, Danilova, Lifar, Spessivtseva, etc.

I thought one thing Cojocaru needs to improve on are her "Wili turns." When Giselle is first initiated as a Wili I always watch the turns. I like Giselles to turn like demons. To see how it's done, watch Natalia Makarova.

I liked the dvd very much but I disagree about Peter Wright's production. I thought it was overly fussy in the first act and cramped the already small Royal Ballet stage. I also didn't like the fact that Giselle was wearing such a dowdy brown dress. I'm one of those people who likes Giselle to be kind of dolled up in the first act. Not glamorous, but definitely wearing her prettiest dress for Albrecht's sake. I thought Cojocaru was exquisite though.

I saw Alina Somova during the City Center run. I was really prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, thinking she couldn't be as bad as everyone says. Well she wasn't ... she was worse. She has no elevation, so when she goes for a grande jete it looks like her legs are just flopping. She also can't really move, despite her ear-whacking. Her fouettes are very amateurish, her pirouettes insecure, and she also has adopted the Uliana Lopatkina way of holding her head so her chin juts out.

I adore Vishneva but I'm wondering if at this point in her career her best roles are the more dramatic ones like Nikya or Giselle rather than Kitri.

If you were to choose between Tereshkina, Vishneva, and Obraztsova in Kitri (the only days I can go, since I have to work on the weekdays) which would you choose? I admit I have seen none of these lovely ballerinas in this role. I saw Vishneva do the Act 3 pdd at the City Center run and she was a bit shaky.

Diana's website which is usually very reliable says that she is dancing on January 13 and 18. Let us keep our fingers crossed.

She broke her neck awhile back (according to Kobborg's website), and has been injured off and on since. I am just glad she is still alive.

Obraztsova "Somewhere" by Amanda Vaill or "Jerome Robbins" by Deborah Jowitt?

After her interview Erik Bruhn was interviewed and he sighed something like, "Gelsey is never happy ..." How about the Giselle with Baryshnikov and Makarova and Swan Lake with Makarova/Nagy?

Sizova, from what I've seen. Giselle who descends to the grave via a trapdoor or Giselle who walks offstage?

Regarding the looking at suitors thing, in Asylmuratova's Rose Adagio (she does the crowns beautifully), she looks down initially but as she releases the hand she looks back up as if to say, "Oh, hi, thank you." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vCbuAySpu4

Whenever I watch Sleeping Beauty I always think of how much better it is when Auroras can make the "crown" over their heads. When you watch Sleeping Beauty do you think it's necessary for Auroras to do that? I don't think it's absolutely necessary but I do enjoy the performance so much more when they can bring down the house with those long balances.

Another thing I notice about his dancing is that I can see why he was called the "next Nijinsky," and not only because of their remarkable similarity in physique (short, with extremely muscular thighs), and their elevation, but because of this androgynous quality to their dancing. This is not to be confused with being effeminate. But his movements have a soft, almost ethereal style. If you watch him dance it's as if his feet never really touch the ground. When he jumps there's no sense of take-off and landing -- it's as if he's Marie Taglioni, literally floating across the stage.

More clips of Soloviev have been uploaded on youtube: Spectre a la Rose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npd9Yi2yD4s But maybe the best is his legendary Bluebird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7m-vCS1Lg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov7F_G2GmtM

Politicians "mark" their speeches too. If you've ever seen rehearsal footage they practice their speeches in front of advisers in a rather low-key tone, and decide which lines work best and which lines to throw out. I've seen footage of Kennedy, Johnson, Barack Obama, etc. all dong this.

I was on TCM the other day and saw "Pat and Mike." It was to my surprise delightful, and for once the banter between Hepburn and Tracy seems real and sweet. One of their best onscreen joint efforts, I'd say. Now getting back on the "difficult" train, I'd say that Spencer Tracy would be my definition of "difficult." This was a man prone to terrifying drinking binges, nasty comments, and temper tantrums. Towards the twilight of his career only someone with the patience of Job aka as Katharine Hepburn was willing to take him in, prop up his career, so to speak.

Yay I can't wait. I hope Gottlieb includes some of his own writings.

I finished reading Antonia Fraser's Marie Antoinette and I was very disappointed. I like Fraser's polished and witty writing style, her attention to detail (she points out the huge difference between the paintings of Marie Antoinette, which show a cherry mouth, with the sculptures and contemporary descriptions, which clearly indicate the infamous Hapsburg lip) but as history I found it to be lacking. I like that Fraser tries to clear the name of Marie Antoinette, who was no doubt a scapegoat and cruelly treated, but her knowledge of the French revolution seems very lacking. For instance, in the trial she brings up how Marie Antoinette was tried for the "Carnation Plot" but doesn't explain what the plot in much detail, nor does she speculate on the Queen's involvement. She writes that Marie Antoinette wrote many letters to her Austrian relatives asking for help, but doesn't quote a single one of those letters, and also doesn't really mention the queen's rigid royalist position. Her portrayal of Louis XVI is insensitive and crude. She seems openly contemptuous of him, taking some potshots at his perceived weakness of character and personal appearance, and even his hobbies. Scarce mention is made of his kind character and loyalty to his family. This is not up to Fraser's other efforts.

Something else to consider: In the late 1960s the company was undergoing an upheaval when Suzanne Farrell came onto the scene, and Mr. B started lavishing attention on her and her alone, to the detriment of the other ballerinas in the company. This affected the males as well, as the tall Jacque d'Amboise and Arthur Mitchell became the favored partners for Farrell, and the shorter Villella could not compete. From "Prodigal Son," it seems as if Villella did not resent Farrell so much as he did d'Amboise, with whom he had a testy relationship. Because of his enormous talent, Villella was able to hold his own and keep Mr. B's attention, but his overdancing may have been a way to make sure he stayed on the radar in the minds of both Mr. B and the public.

Also, I've been comparing translations of Don Quixote. I've comes across three, and it's incredible how a good (or bad) translation can ruin a book. Bad: the Pierre Motteux translation. Makes the book unreadable, almost. He bunches together paragraphs a la Henry James, he adds like two proverbs when there is only one, and he makes both Sancho and Don Quixote rather crude. I threw it out. Good: Edith Grossman. I think Grossman's translation is the most accessible for modern readers. Grossman is an acclaimed translator of Spanish-language works and she's very good at making the pages fly by while still preserving to some extent the flavor of an "old novel." However, sometimes I think she goes too far in trying to make the book accessible. At one point Don Quixote says, "Hey, whoa!" Good: Walter Starkie: It's an older translation, and he seems to have taken some care into making it sound like a quaint "old book." There's nothing wrong with that, and I feel that it gives the book a kind of charm, but I can see high school students finding it harder to read. Still, it's leaps and bounds better than the Motteux translation.

I have David Vaughn's book and it's indispensable. It is also overloaded with incredible pictures -- rehearsal pictures, stage pictures -- of the original productions, with the original casts. I picked it up for $20 at Strand bookstore.

Yes and for awhile it was one of their top videos, which means enough people remembered it. The worst part of it was how the coach immediately went back to texting on his blackberry after his tirade, as if to say, "Next." Despite my quibbles with NBC coverage (way too much primetime devoted to beach volleyball, while other very interesting sports have gotten the shaft) I am glad that they cut the fluff pieces in favor of more live coverage, even if it did mean staying up VERY late. The fluff pieces can be found at their website. I think I learned more about Michael Phelps watching the way his face tensed before the 100 butterfly race, as if he knew this was the race he could very well lose, than all the fluff pieces about his mom and his coach put together.