canbelto

Farrell would have trouble dancing the classics especially in her later years because of her knee injury which made jumping difficult. Mr. B would have around that, but you can't avoid jumps in, say, Giselle or Swan Lake.

Ok maybe I'm being a bit of an iconoclast but I've seen Jewels live, now I've seen it on video, and I of course have seen the Farrell/Martins pdd. And Diamonds is by far my least favorite section of Jewels, especially the pas de deux. Because the choreography is ... a lot of walking. Or at least it seems like a lot of walking. The music sounds very dirge-like. I think it's the hardest section to pull off, and at this point I've seen the ballet enough to think that it's because it's the worst section of Jewels. Letetsu and Bart are very slow and deliberate, I agree, but they IMO only expose the weakness of the choreography.

omshanti, I'm sorry if I seem like I'm peppering you with questions, but when do you think this phenomenon happened? I admit that I have never really looked at buttock placement carefully in dancers. And I have never seen the earlier version of La Sylphide, so I can't use that as comparison. And how do you think that affects the line of dancers?

omshanti, forgive me if I'm missing something, but I really don't understand what the buttock placement is, and what a good example of "highly lifted and light buttocks that dancers of the past had." And I kind of don't understand how buttock placement prevents one from being a great dancer??? Again, forgive me because I kind of don't understand the importance of buttock placement.

I don't know much about Mr. B's politics but didn't Suzanne Farrell say that Balanchine told her she absolutely had to vote for Hubert Humphrey in 1968? Or am I imagining things? Another interesting question might be: if Lydia Ivanova hadn't been murdered by the KGB (an event which so traumatized Balanchine that he decided to leave Russia for good) how would Balanchine have fared in Russia?

I think back then Suzanne would probably have had a harder time dancing in classical roles because of her extreme height. Nowadays super-tall ballerinas (Lopatkina, Zakharova) are much more common. But Suzanne in her book said she went to a Fonteyn/Nureyev Giselle but afterwards had no interest in classical ballet.

She danced Swan Lake for the National Ballet of Canada, that I know.

Ok I saw the silent version of Floating Weeds. If pressed to choose, I'd actually say the silent version is better. Although it's shorter, less picturesque, and without dialogue, I found that it packed more of an emotional punch. And the difference, I think, is generational. So much of Floating Weeds depends on class. In 1959, the stigma of being the son of an actor, or dating an actress, no longer seems so pungent. The emotions of the 1934 film are more raw, with the final confrontation being so painful that one has to look away. In the 1959 film, Ozu is more contemplative and philosophical. The pace is more leisurely.Not that the thread of heartbreak isn't there -- it is, but in the silent film the conclusion is more shattering. The movie packs more of an emotional wallop. There's no silver lining to the cloud. In 1959, the final shot seems to indicate, "Life goes on." In 1934, the idenitical shot seems much bleaker, more haunting.

Well I saw it this afternoon and it's the perfect summer film. Not a great film, but very enjoyable nonetheless. I agree that Streep is perfect, and really makes the film work. Besides being delightfully malicious I love how she also gives Miranda a hint of humanity, which makes her even more terrifying. I also enjoyed Staney Tucci a lot. I also liked Anne Hathaway. No matter that she looked absolutely chic in her supposedly horrid pre-glam clothes -- I thought she played the ingenue well. Emily Blunt was wonderful as the "first assistant" Emily. The movie of course is sort of Hollywood in that it also glamourizes the high-fashion world even while condemning the abusive and brusque Miranda. But overall I thought the movie was funny and entertaining, and a really enjoyable two hours. ETA: I also liked the little cameos, Gisele Bundchen for example.

Diana on her website also reveals that she wanted to be a figure skater as a child. I wonder how the figure skater/dancer distinction is chosen, because many figure skaters (Katia Gordeeva for example) started out as dancers and vice versa.

Well there's a heavy subtext of class in the film. The "floating weeds" of the movie are obviously of the underclass, composed of drifters and women of questionable repute. The father realizes that if he truly wants to do right by his son, he has to let him go and not burden him with the knowledge/presence that he's the son of a lowly actor. It's a very depressing conclusion, a bit like the movie Stella Dallas. I don't know if I can watch another Ozu film. The two I've watched (Tokyo Story and Floating Weeds) both seem to go by the famous axiom "Life is disappointing." dirac, are Late Spring and the others just as depressing?

Well I agree that the Master and his mistress do seem resigned to a life together, but I thought of it as a kind of stoicism on the part of the Master, and helplessness on the part of the mistress. Instead of watching his son grow up, he's again on the road with a rather manipulative woman who has to use her 'feminine charms' just to get them another gig. I just thought there was so much "what could have been" in the movie that I found unsettling. For instance, if the son had come downstairs a minute earlier, would the father have left? What's going to happen to the son and the actress? I thought the scene of the son, the actress, and the mother all crying was so hard to watch that I had to turn away. I've just rarely seen a film where so many characters at the end of the film are so heartbroken. By the way Floating Weeds is a remake of a silent film Ozu made in 1934, which is on the other disc. I havent seen that yet, but I will.

I thought the most heartbreaking scene was when the "Master" promises to come back when he's a "successful actor." You know he never will, and that he'll never come back. It was just a very sad conclusion, very "unHollywood," as there's absolutely no happy ending. The son doesn't accept his father, and the father doesn't stay to fight.

I just saw Floating Weeds, and wow, it starts off slowly but really packs an emotional wallop. I preferred it to Tokyo Story actually.

I like Roman Polanski's Macbeth too. I thought it was pretty faithful to the play, very well-acted, and the scenery and costumes were wonderful. I thought it was an overall good job. I'm having buyer's remorse here. I bought a "Much Ado About Nothing" that looks good on paper -- its with Katherine Widdoes and Sam Waterston. Should I open it?

The issue I have with Antonia Fraser's Mary Queen of Scots biography is her writing style. She wrote the entire book as if she was in a competition with Henry James to write the longest sentences possible and to fit those endless sentences into the longest paragraphs possible. Plus, her failure to translate a lot of correspondence is irritating.

And Elizabeth was really a remarkable combination of her father and mother, wasn't she? Speaking of remarkable women, I recommend Alison Weir's Eleanor of Aquitaine. And W.L. Warren's biography of her equally remarkable husband, Henry II.

In the same vein, David Starkey's biography on the six wives of Henry VIII is really good ... for Catherine and Anne Boleyn. His chapters on the remaining four wives seem almost perfunctory in comparison, but I thought he made Catherine and Anne Boleyn very real and believable. I also enjoyed Jane Dunn's "Elizabeth and Mary."

dirac, that As You Like It film might have been a good vehicle for Katharine Hepburn (and Olivier). Hepburn would have brought her slight androgyny and also a prickly, acidic charm to the role. It would have been a better movie. I also would have liked to see Cary Grant try a role like Benedick. Not likely to happen, considering how averse Grant was to "taking risks," but he had the kind of dry wit down pat, and he also had a smirk to launch 1,000 ships. Getting back to actual Shakespearean adaptations, I saw Ran the other night, and it's really an impressive adaptation of this difficult difficult play. I highly recommend it. Also, Richard III with Ian McKellan.

drb, Diana as a pointe guard! I'm totally stealing that from you She does have the long arms and agility of the best point guards. When she grande jetes (which are something you just have to see live), it's such a "fast break." Ok I have to stop now, before I start sounding like a dork. Something more about Vishneva and Malakhov: at the end of their pdd, it was amazing to see their arms and bodies lined up perfectly. The only other time I've seen such a perfect alignment was the Fonteyn/Nureyev tape. There are so many great touches to Vishneva's Giselle, but one great moment is how when she realizes Albrecht has betrayed her, she furiously RIPS off Bathilde's necklace and flings it into the air with disgust. This Giselle is not a pretty pushover. She's passionate and strong-willed, and she wasn't just heartbroken, she was MAD. So it wasn't a surprise that she'd be such a formidable, implacable presence in Act 2. Interestingly, Diana on her website said that she originally wanted to be a figure skater. I am glad she chose ballet instead, because while I'm sure Diana would have brought grace, passion, and fierce athleticism on the ice, it would only be 4 minutes of grace, passion, and athleticism. Buddy, the video from Japan is is obtainable I believe from Japanese websites.

FDR carefully cultivated an image that hid his physical impairment though. As a result some Americans did not know that he had polio and was a parapelegic. Hard to believe, but true. The PBS documentary shows a very moving clip of FDR's last State of the Union speech, in which he admits that he can no longer "stand up." He looked exhausted. I think he probably literally worked himself to death. By the way, I do not mean to bash the Cook biographies of Eleanor. They are incredibly well-researched and insightful. I just felt that her treatment of FDR was unfair.

What most impressed me about Vishneva's Giselle was her manic energy. Especially in the second act. There was something so implacable about her. It was as if she was purging her own inner demons. She was going to battle Myrtha and she was going to win. From her frenzied spins to her enormous grande jetes, she used every bit of movement to delineate her strength of character. Her face was stern, staring Myrtha down, and only softening during the pdd with Malakhov. When daybreak came, she gently lifted Malakhov's arm, to remind him that he was alive. Suddenly, she radiated serenity and peace, and a desire to descend back into her grave. She gave Malakhov one last flower, and then she disappeared. It was unforgettable. Vishneva's petite (certainly not a part of the Kirov Basketball Team), but her super-long arms and enormous eyes give her a huge stage presence. Her feet are not Paloma Herrera pretty, and unlike many American dancers she doesn't seem afraid to absolutely pound her shoes into the stage floor. She has such enormous elevation, which is why she's such a good partner for Malakhov. The way they were able to jump to the exact same height was something to watch.

Actually I caught on TCM the 1936 "As You Like It" with Olivier and Bergner. Olivier is off the charts in the drool factor, but sounds really awkward and "green" with the language. But somehow, it worked, because Orlando is this awkward youth who writes awful poetry. And as I said, the drool factor is huge. dirac, I'm not saying only teens can be cast as R&J, just that Danes and DiCaprio managed to be convincing in the parts (IMO) without really having a grasp of the language. I thought they were better than Hussey and Whiting. 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.

Ok, I'm going to admit: I really enjoyed Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, in part because of diCaprio and Danes. I know this is going to sound funny, but their "wrongness" with language made them right for the part. Romeo's 16, Juliet's 13. It's the same reason I liked the very adolescent Hussey and Leonard Whiting in the 1968 Zefferelli film. In order to make all that poetic language sound natural, I think a certain kind of adolescent awkwardness is necessary. For me, at least. dirac, it's too bad Clift was disfigured by that accident, because he might have made West Side Story (the film) much better, even if he was a bit old for the part, and couldn't sing. Come to think of it, Richard Beymer was a Clift lookalike, but without the talent.

The kids were firmly on FDR's side. Anna (their daughter) moved to the White House to take care of her father, and also arranged for discreet meetings with Lucy Mercer, FDR's ex-lover, for whom he still carried a torch (to put it mildly). In fact, Lucy was by FDR's side when he died, and Eleanor and Anna were estranged for a time because Eleanor realized Anna had been complicit in these meetings. Their son wrote a biography that also made Eleanor seem cold and self-absorbed. Reading all the biographies, it occurs to me that Eleanor was an extraordinary woman, but perhaps not a good mother or wife. But Eleanor's own autobiography says that she felt she was just another person FDR "used" and I always sensed a bitterness that FDR thought of her more as a nagging policy advisor than wife. And then there's Lorena Hickock and Earl Miller, two other mysteries ... My sense is that these two extraordinary people were not compatible on a personal level, although they made a great political "team" and, as Eleanor said, she was a "spur." I thought Cook's biographies, as well-written as they are, were really unfair to FDR.