canbelto

Maybe "campy" is the wrong word. I'd more say "affected." Someone mentioned "Chaplinesque" and I agree -- but I sort of think Masina is Chaplinesque in the wrong ways. Chaplin could drop the act and become totally naturalistic -- like the final moments of City Lights. As I said, at times I felt like I was watching a puppet show. I might appreciate it more on second viewing, but I don't think it's my kind of movie.

There have been so many Shakespeare clunkers, but a lot of good adaptations too. What are your favorites? I personally love Throne of Blood. It's not an adaptation per se, but I thought it captured the "Scots play" better than any other Macbeth adaptation. I like the depiction of the Macbeths' marriage as cold, empty, and sexless. The traditional depiction is that of a highly lustful relationship, with Lady M using her sexuality to spur on her husband. But Kurosawa sees the marriage as empty, devoid of anything but pure ambition. I also really liked Roman Polanski's more straightforward adaptation. In general, I think Macbeth responds well to celluloid. It's straightforward, without the numerous subplots of Hamlet or King Lear. Call me dorky, but I liked Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, with di Caprio and Danes. I liked Zefferelli's film as well, but I actually thought Danes and di Caprio were better actors than Hussey and IforgottheRomeo. Sure the text is slashed, but Zefferelli slashed the text just as much. I was one of the few people who disliked Much Ado About Nothing. Forced gaiety always rubs me the wrong way. It seems as if Branagh is so determined to make us think, "Oh, what a great time!" I didn't have such a great time. I liked Olivier's Henry V. I haven't seen Branagh's, but I thought that while Olivier took out the darker parts of the play, overall he captured the life-affirming spirit. His wooing of Catherine was very charming, as was the deliberately artificial sets. He handled the humorous parts of the play quite well I think.

Well I saw it last night, and I guess I'm one of the, uh, idiots. Well I'm not a total idiot, but if there's a way to take pathos to a campy bathetic level, I think Masina did it. The movie reminds me more of a puppet play (a la Petrushka) and I admit it felt affected. I wasn't as moved as I thought I'd be. But since this has turned into a general movie thread, I'll remind movie buffs that Criterion has released 400 Blows. Now that is a movie that I think deserves all the accolades it gets. Jules et Jim is more well-known, but 400 Blows to me is the real masterpiece. Such an understated movie, yet I'm always devastated, no matter how many times I watch it.

I think Alina Somova looks a little like Jennifer Aniston. Somova Aniston And Evgenia Obratsova looks a lot like Gelsey Kirkland.

I just found this thread that has photos of members of the Vaganova Class of 2003, and you can spot Vostrotina and Somova among them. Vostrotina looks like a beautiful dancer.

Well, I saw the whole thing, and I must say I loved it. I didn't find it exploitative at all. There's some wonderful pictures of Margot as a young woman. Incredible footage of a 1937 Giselle. I had no idea footage like that even existed. There's a great rehearsal scene of Birthday Offering, in which Ashton tries to show Margot the right way to arabesque. It was hilarious. There's also a color version of Margot's Rose Adagio that I've never seen before, as well as the pdd from Nutcracker, which I'd never seen before. Wonderful stuff. I finished the documentary with a tremendous sense of admiration for Margot. What an incredibly brave, strong-willed, self-sacrificing woman. She wasn't perfect, but I sensed that everyone who ever knew her admired her. The documentary starts off very melodramatically, but I thought it settled into a balanced, tasteful, heartfelt tribute to this incredible woman. Sure it was sad hearing that Tito's son Roberto was even more of a freeloader than Tito himself, but when I finished the documentary I even felt sympathy for Tito, despite the fact that he was a philandering freeloader. He didn't know any better. And if there is such a thing as karma, Tito certainly got his comeuppance, as cruel as that sounds. There are truly wonderful anecdotes that said so much about Margot. Keith Money tells of how Margot used to see stoned teenagers and would run inside to feed them. Really insightful interviews from everyone, from Robert Gottlieb to Keith Money to Tito's children. Lynn Seymour looks incredibly beautiful. Keith Money by the way ends the documentary with a very opinionated take on the "gala" the Royal Ballet staged for Fonteyn when she was broke and dying of cancer.

La Strada is on tonight. I'm ashamed to admit I've never seen much Fellini. Is it worth watching?

But Part is a very different kind of dancer than Obratsova. Obratsova is a soubrette, and the ABT is notably short of soubrettes. There's Reyes, but that's about it. Obratsova would be a great Juliet, Giselle, Aurora, Swanilda, Raymonda.

Ok, with the right recording modes I think I can record two movies. I've already decided one will be Rules of the Game, as everyone seems to think that's the can't miss. I trust y'all's judgement. So ... between Grand Illusion, KMK, and ROTD (of which I've only seen half) which would you choose?

Wow. I was horrified just reading that. It seems unbelievably cruel. And I don't understand the logic behind it either. Would not winning have been seen as a "shame" to the MT?

It's confirmed -- the upcoming Swan Lake release in July is the Makhalina/Zelensky performance.

I saw Remains of the Day -- but only parts of it. Namely, the second half. I like Thompson and Hopkins a lot, but I would like to see the first half of it. That movie polarized a lot of people. I know people who think it's the greatest film ever, and people who thought it pretentious, stuffy, boring, and an insult to the novel. I've never read the novel. I'm also curious about Kiss Me Kate because I love the Cole Porter songs, but have never seen the film. I did see the staged version on PBS a few years ago. But I will trust your judgements and choose Rules of the Game and Grand Illusion

I am leaving town for the next week or so, and I won't have access to Turner Classic Movies. It just so happens that they are showing 4 movies that I really want to see and record -- Kiss Me Kate, Rules of the Game, Grand Illusion, and Remains of the Day. I have only seen Remains, but the other three have been highly recommended. So ... given that I can only record one or at most two of the movies, which ones would you all choose? Dirac???

A friend just gave me this book as a gift. I expected it to be mostly a coffee table book, and it is, with beautiful pictures. However, Smakov also gives lengthy biographical and critical sketches of many dancers, and I was surprised to see how candid/controversial many of his comments were. For instance, he is extremely critical of Galina Ulanova, criticizing her technical weaknesses, and what he calls her "propaganda appeal." It's definitely an interesting book, and although I didn't always agree with him, I found his chapters to be extremely well-written and thoughtful.

Jenny Somogyi looks like Celine Dion, except prettier.

I feel stupid for posting so quickly on this topic. According to this interview, the Somova/Yagudin relationship has ended.

Just to add ONE more note and then I'm done: when I was citing Ashton and Nureyev, I was just voicing two prominent examples of the I-dont-like-Tito-club. I believe it was much, much larger, and the list was much, much longer. And I do see a kind of willful defense of Tito in Fonteyn's memoirs, that seemed like spin control. What I found disturbing was how Fonteyn blamed all their marital troubles (the ones she admits to) on herself.

I don't doubt Fonteyn wasn't a stage animal, but the astronomical medical bills are no doubt a huge reason why she went on dancing for so long. Also, if it hadn't been for Tito's gambling/spending/expensive tastes, Fonteyn might have been able to retire in some dignity and comfort, rather than living in a roofless shack. That is just something so awful that I can't help but think that Tito was essentially an irresponsible, faithless playboy, and I don't think that just because Fonteyn was fanatically loyal to her husband that biographers should necessarily show the same loyal and sympathy for Tito. In other words, Fonteyn's biography may be a huge love letter to her husband, but I don't think that we should take her word for granted just because it's her word. If the documentary paraded a bunch of Tito's lovers, I'd say that yes, that's gossipy exploitation. But to come to the conclusion that Tito was a charming good-for-nothing playboy, I'd say that's the truth. No doubt it would have hurt Fonteyn to hear that, but it's what many of her close friends (including Ashton and Nureyev) thought, and sometimes, well, the truth hurts.

Well see this is sort of a circular argument, because the fact is, Tito was married to Fonteyn, and he chose to expose her to shady characters (the dictator jetsetting club like Marcos and Pinochet), and dangerous situations (like the gunrunning/coup). So one can't really talk about Fonteyn while completely skipping over her husband, and his character. And it's hard to talk about Fonteyn without also talking about Tito, and even the way he affected her career. The inevitable truth is that he prolonged it because of his astronomical medical bills, and extravagant lifestyle. Fonteyn had to go out and dance every night, often in much pain, so Tito could live the good life. He caused bad publicity for the Royal Ballet, which is why in 1959 di Valois named Fonteyn "guest dancer" without even notifying Fonteyn of the news. Now where I think biographers might have gone too far is emphasis, not facts. For instance, the Daneman biography goes on for pages and pages of speculation about whether Fonteyn and Nureyev ever consummated the relationship, but she falls back on cliches when describing what made their partnership so special. To me, it's not so important whether they ever consummated the relationship. The overall arc of their relationship was that of magic onstage and an unconventional but very deep devotion offstage. So I agree, I dont really need to hear about every women Tito ever slept with. But it is important to know that he was a faithless and irresponsible playboy husband who caused his wife much pain and exposed her to dangerous situations and awful people.

In the romance department, I think Lady Vanishes might be Hitchcock's most delightful romance. Although the movie in itself is not a romance, Iris and Gilbert have wonderful chemistry, and it's one of the few Hitchcock "romances" where there's no dark side.

Yes Fonteyn chose to portray her husband as the man of the people, a wonderful leader, and a great man. Personally, I think if she hadn't made her biography so hagiographic about Tito, the documentaries wouldn't be so harsh on him. As it is, she made him out to be a saint, and he clearly was not. There's a new book that touches upon this subject. Ashton's biography also goes into rather more detail about the chicanery behind of the scenes of the Royal Ballet. (Ashton being just as influential and manipulative, if not more so, than di Valois.) OT: And about Hepburn, she didn't choose to speak about her abasement. She chose to speak about her devotion to a man she admitted was difficult and an alcoholic. It wasn't until she passed that we got the full story of just how much she had endure for the sake of Tracy. I can't watch their films together, knowing what their life was like offscreen.

Well personally I've always believed that if you live a public life, and enjoy all the perks that come along with being a public figure, it's naive to say, "Ok, we can only talk about my career." It doesn't happen this way, and I don't see why Margot should be exempt. FDR painstakingly tried to create the image that he wasn't paralyzed, to the point where many Americans were unaware that he was wheel-chair bound. But is it even right for a biographer to skim over the fact that FDR had polio and it took all the strength in the world for him to even stand up for a split second? JFK also painstakingly created the image that he was the all-American, athletic picture of health. With those carefully timed "touch football" videos. In fact, he was in excruciating pain from back injuries suffered during WW2, and also had a bunch of other health problems that were hidden from the public as well. There's the case of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Again, I don't think less of him. But I do understand him more. Getting into the movie business, Kate Hepburn, the iconic image of the independent, sharp-tongued woman, was for years slavishly devoted to a self-destructive alchoholic who could be cruel and abusive to Hepburn when on his drinking binges. Hepburn admitted as much in her interviews later in life. And learning about all this stuff does not make me think less of them at all. It just makes me understand them better. I guess I'm in the camp that I don't want to learn "juicy details" for shock value's sake. I do like to learn about the person behind the persona, though.

I understand how beloved Margot Fonteyn is, but I don't think that ignoring anything remotely negative in her personal life is going to her any favors. In fact, it made me admire Fonteyn more, to know that she wasn't just this prim and proper prig, but in fact went through hardship and heartbreak just like everyone else.

First of all, I think ballet is a sport in that it requires athleticism, stamina, and risk of injury. That being said, I also think the injuries that dancers face, while substantial, or not necessarily "greater" than the injuries of football/basketball/baseball players. They're just different. For instance, in baseball, the constant run/stop nature of the game leads to a lot of pulled tendons and sprained ankles. For pitchers, shoulder problems and chronic arm pain are very common. For basketball, knee and back injuries are common, as is arthritis. All of these sports require discipline, skill, stamina, and they all come with a risk of injury.

dirac, I think that the audience was meant to assume that Jerry's "visits" to Charlotte and Tina would be purely platonic. That was the only way they could get it through the code. But of course the ultra-romantic ending suggests that the "stars" will include some romance, and soon Jerry's wife will pass on and Jerry and Charlotte will then have the moon too. It's the strength of Davis's performance makes NV transcend its weepie genre. Also, although I find Henreid stiff elsewhere, he does have great chemistry with Davis. The role of Charlotte also came easy for Davis, whose accent was 3/4 New England and 1/4 Hollywood. I can totally believe her as the Boston spinster as well as the glamour girl. Davis is one of the few actresses who can turn a rather hackneyed script into something greater by her mere presence. When young, Montgomery Clift was remarkable for playing the young romantic. I know the story is very dark, but Clift is heartbreaking in Place in the Sun, and he brought out the very best in Elizabeth Taylor.