canbelto

"What's Eating Gilbert Grape." A totally lovely family drama and most people I've met have never even seen it.

And if Diana is injured then it's best that she not dance a role like Giselle, because you could say her Giselle is almost demented, particularly in the second act. A watered-down tentative Giselle from Vishneva would not do at all.

Yes good luck Diana! Up to a meet great at Giselle, to use my best Dianglish.

I think "A Star is Born" is overrated. While I appreciate Judy Garland's talents and George Mason's sympathetic portrayal of Norman Maine the movie is still overlong and I don't find many of the songs all that appealing. The other Cukor film I think is overrated is "Philadelphia Story." Never saw the appeal of that movie, never will.

I remember I saw this when their was the wonderful Ashton Festival at Lincoln Center about 4 years ago. It was billed with Enigma Variations. I don't remember much about EV, but I remember that at the end of Two Pigeons there wasn't a dry eye in the house. Then I left the building and two British gentlemen were talking and they praised EV and said, "Two Pigeons is as dreadful as I remembered it." I couldn't help but ask them why it was "dreadful." I said I thought it was a beautiful love story. "That's why," one said. "Sentimental hogwosh." I couldn't agree.

One thing also that surprised me was what at what a fast clip the ABT Shades now do their descent/arabesque. Traditionally the Russians do it faster, but this time it seems as if the ABT Shades were faster than the Kirov (when I saw them in January at least).

I dislike the Makarova version because it streamlines the ballet so much. I miss the character dances of the betrothal scene, especially Manu. I don't like the musical rearrangements, such as deletion of Nikya's joyful flower dance. She also reduces the corps de ballet in the Shades scene from 32 to 24. And I think the 3rd act has almost no choreography to speak of. But yesterday with Part and Gomes it proved that with the right dancers and storytellers Makarova's version can be a very powerful experience. For such a large, stately dancer (and I mean this in the best possible way) Part seemed absolutely weightless in her jumps. They had an incredible buoyancy that seemed almost life-affirming in the Shades pdd. Whereas Wiles, who is a much thinner dancer, did similar grande jetes but they seemed heavy and leaden.

Yes indeed! Lopatkina for instance did not attempt the bidirectional pirouettes and Somova attempted them but ... well, no comment. Posters have commented on how spectacular Part's supported pirouette finishing in attitude was and I agree -- the way she was absolutely ON with the music gave the pas de deux this feeling of a thrilling climax. The way she pointed her arm up towards the heavens reminded me of the spontaneous arm raising basketball players often make after sinking a buzzer shot. Weird analogy, but it had the same joy and flourish.

I saw the matinee performance as well and this is the first time I truly "got" Veronika Part. I saw her in Swan Lake and while I admired some things about her O/O, the performance never really took off for me. I think part of it might have been the lack of chemistry between Part and Hallberg, who other than being tall and good-looking danced as if they had nothing in common. Today it was a different story. Part and Gomes are extraordinarily well-matched -- they're both dark-haired, gorgeous, and more importantly, it's obvious the two of them have a rapport. Their was intimacy in even the most formal of poses, such as the swan lift that ends their Shades pdd. Part was technically fine, although the pirouettes in the Scarf Duet were a bit shaky. But I loved that even though she's a stately, imperious-looking ballerina, she made her Nikya so delicate and warm. Unfortunately in Makarova's version of the ballet she is not allowed to dance the joyful flower basket dance but her dance of grief before Gamzatti and Solor was beautiful. Her mime after being bitten and betrayed was clear and vehement. Even in the Shades scene, her Nikya was never remote. Her grande jetes had a buoyancy to them that gave Nikya life. When she completed that series of diagonal pirouettes and raised her arm in triumph, for once there was real joy to the gesture. I've never seen anyone make more of that moment. The Shades scene thus became not just a dance abstract but a real reconciliation between the lovers. She was almost the polar opposite of Uliana Lopatkina, who I saw in January. Lopatkina made Nikya almost transparent, a spectacle of pure dance. Veronika's Nikya was always telling a story. Marcelo Gomes' Solor was equal to Part's Nikya -- how noble, how handsome! What a great partner! On a lesser level, I thought, was Michele Wiles' Gamzatti. She was technically ok but rather bland. She had some rocky moments in the grand betrothal scene. Her jumps were clipped and earthbound. She seems a little too nice for the role. I would have liked to see Gillian Murphy or Irina Dvorovenko. I thought Renata Pavam was excellent as the first shade. I was afraid to see the corps de ballet, thinking Id compare them unfavorably to the Mariinsky in Januray, but the corps de ballet was (surprise!) gorgeous. A minimum of wobbling, and all their arabesques were well-timed and in sync. I still dislike Makarova's production, but the connection between Part and Gomes was so strong that even the weakest part (Act 3) was compelling. Compared to the Swan Lake, where applause was tepid, this time both principals were showered with ovations and bouquets during the curtain calls. Bravo Veronika and Marcelo!

On youtube there is now a documentary about Diaghilev that was made around 1982, hosted by Tamara Geva. I'd never even heard of the documentary before, but it combines some narrative with interviews with Markova, Ninette di Valois, Felia Doubrovska, Alexandra Danilova, Vera Stravinsky, and Anton Dolin. But the crown jewel of the documentary is interviews with Mr. B, who has some wonderful stories to tell and a harsh judgment of the Ballet Russes in general. Really, if you can't trust sources like this who can you trust? Just search "Serge Diaghilev" and you'll find it.

Who's her husband?

About her reluctance to be filmed, here's a long, recent interview with her:Sylvie Guillem. Of being filmed, she says:

Guillem has been very vocal about the fact that she hates being filmed, and will only be photographed by her husband Gilles Tapies. But there is a dvd documentary of her called Evidentia, that has clips of her performing and rehearsing. She agreed to be filmed in excerpts for the South Bank show, and in the middle of a dvd of Paris Opera Ballet choreography, most of which is astonishingly bad, there is the jewel of her and Manuel Legris in a wonderful performance of Grand pas classique. She also released a dvd of her and Nicholas LeRiche in a film of Marguerite and Armand.

What I love about Croce is that she can be so surprising. She gives a balanced, thoughtful, and spirited defense of Mayerling, of all ballets. And then she drops a line like this in the middle of a mostly laudatory review of her beloved NYCB: "Has there been a worse-dressed ballet company in the history of the world?"

I got all three books -- "Afterimages," "Going to the Dance," and "Sight and Sound." Now along with "Writing in the Dark," I have all four Croce books, save the one she wrote about Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. I think of the four volumes, "Writing in the Dark" is my least favorite. I'm puzzled as to why so many great pieces that she wrote that were included in the earlier anthologies were left out, including her lovely, understated obituary to George Balanchine. Ironically "Writing in the Dark" has her two most famous pieces, "Dimming the Lights" and "Discussing the Undiscussable." But they happen to be my least favorite Croce pieces actually. But really, I'm grateful I have all four volumes, because even when I disagree with her she is fascinating and articulate.

Gonna have to agree with dirac that Godfather for me isn't overrated. It might be a victim of its own popularity, a kind of "a movie that popular can't possibly be any good." As for "Lost in Translation," I loved that film, but I'm a huge fan of Bill Murray so ... I also thought it was a nicely bittersweet romance. But speaking of overrated films, I don't agree, but here's an interesting article arguing that Rules of the Game is overrated.

Reviving this thread: Juno. It was cute and quirky but the accolades bestowed upon it were just weird.

What upsets me is that on youtube there's the comment that "it's the Russian way" to be like Sacharova, who I remembered hitting her students. I find these assumptions to be quite franky ignorant at best and even racist.

I can't help but think there might be a "mistake" in calculations, because my 'perfect weight' would be 72 pounds, and I don't think a dancer could have the muscle required to dance at 72 pounds, perfect weight or no perfect weight. Does anyone who's familiar with Russian ballet schools know about this 'perfect weight' calculation?

According to updates from the director Oksana is now 5'9" and 97 pounds. Yikes. And he spoke in interviews about Russians calculating 'perfect weight' which is your height in cm minus 127. Wow.

So if I had to choose between "Afterimages" and "Going to the Dance" which one is higher priority?

Hi, I just bought "Writing in the Dark" and am reading it voraciously. Are the earlier compendums worth buying as well, or would I just be reading material already included in "Writing in the Dark"?

Ok am I alone in finding the "Farrell move" kind of ugly? I'm sure it was magnificent on her, but Mearns is a dancer without Farrell's flexibility, and to me it seems as if she was straining so hard, too hard, to get that nose to the knee.

I can't believe no threads have been started. I went to the Saturday matinee today to see "Symphony in C," "Symphony in Three Movements," and "Western Symphony." First of all, I don't think dancers could ruin Symphony in C if they wanted to. The work is so beautiful, so energetic, it practically dances itself. Abi Stafford was an unexpected delight in the first movement. She's been criticized in the past for being hard-boiled but I didn't see much of that today. What I saw was a strong allegro dancer who started the ballet on an energetic note. Then Sara Mearns in the sublime second movement. Oh boy, I am about to sound very unkind but there's that saying, "If you can't balance don't dance Aurora." I think the same could be said for the second movement. Mearns looked alarmingly shaky, grabbing onto her partner Charles Askergard for dear life, thus ruining the fluidity of the choreography. She compensated by a molasses-like slowness. While I like the fact that she dares to be different (very often, even the best NYCB dancers have a "hey, I'm fast! Hey I'm cheerful" anonymity), her tentative delivery and frankly unlovely line were very disappointing. Megan Fairchild on the other hand was less cutesy and stronger technically than I've seen her in the past. The third movement was maybe the best movement this afternoon. The final movement never fails to amaze me. "Symphony in Three Movements" I've never seen before, and even though it's a leotard ballet, it reminds me of one of Balanchine's "tutu" ballets, with its flood of women and basically cheerful score. Seeing Wendy Whelan is like running into an old friend at the airport. It's always nice to just see her, no matter what she's dancing, because of the energy and commitment she brings to everything she dances. I used to find her very hard-boiled, but age, a bit of weight, and a blonder hairdo, as well as maturity, has softened her considerably. "Western Symphony" was the hit of the afternoon, and it was a joy to see the ageless Damian Woetzel dancing like a man half his age, and the tall, kittenish Teresa Reichlen in the "Tanny" role, as well as the lovely Kathryn Morgan in the second movement. The finale, with the whole stage zippily turning, might be the most toe-tapping exhilarating Balanchine ending ever, and that's saying a lot.

I'm reading the absolutely heartbreaking "Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would be Human". As animal lover the chimp's journey from a Manhattan brownstone to a medical research laboratory to a chimp retirement farm is one of the most entertaining yet disturbing books I've ever read.