Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Without a doubt Riolama Lorenzo, Jessy Hendrickson, Edward Liang and Peter Hansen. Of late the ones that retired Margaret Tracey and Lourdes Lopez.
  2. I finally saw it this weekend (so I suppose my $10 contributed to the $50M it made this weekend alone) I felt pressured to see it on the big screen and wish I hadn't. I'm not a horror film fan, not even the ridiculous Scream films, but this felt more Freddy Kruger than anything else. I was struck by how much I've learned from reading about the controversy and lack of "factual" in the film. Then again, this is a Hollywood film. Jesus is still portrayed as in the Da Vinci paintings, except I did read they changed Jim C's eyes digitally from blue to brown. I don't feel it was as controversial as it has been made and I can't help but wonder if some of the controversy was simply PR machinery. But it was an extremely violent film spending far too much time on the horror of the death as opposed to the meaning of the death.
  3. But what if the standard for the dancers now is not the aforementioned dancers? What if some of them think those dancers stunk? Not that they think that. But if your frame of reference is not the same of that person reviewing you, how can you ever perform to their standards? I think we unforunately exist in a time where there's a need for instant stars, who can be tossed aside when the next IT girl/guy comes up and then years later you realize, oh that one was good (as in the case of Weese, who got sidelined with injury, but...) Coaching is certainly a problem, but what good is it if the company director obviously doesn't feel it's necessary? Isn't the company the current AD's vision? It's why people (myself included) have such a hard time with Martins. He denies us any glimpse of the past, yet I read about it all the time in reviews and have no idea what they're talking about.
  4. Programming reminds me of the old Joffrey. Brava to PA Ballet.
  5. I didn't find the article that bad. I agree with him for the most part, though I didn't see Edge/Gold, only heard about it. I thought his instant dismissal of Borree should have been edited out, it wasn't necessary, yet I liked how he admitted he liked watching Weese. Perhaps it was he not Weese who had "new awareness that dancing involves performance as well as steps" I have always liked the pace of Martins Beauty. For me it was nice to see a storybook and not have to sit around for 40 minutes of intermission. it's like the Cliff Notes version of the ballet. Get as many people on the stage and off. But then again, I don't think you go to NYCB to see an "authentic" Beauty. But back to Gottlieb. Sometimes in reading him, I feel he's following a formula, like writing a 5 paragraph essay. For every good there's a bad and then he throws the history in to conflict with the present. So I never get the sense from him that he feels the company or the art form moves forward. I've never seen Fonteyn and dare I say, there's a group coming up who has no idea who she is and if they saw tapes would criticize how she can't turn. It's simply not fair to compare anyone to Pavlova, Fonteyn and Nijinsky. It's like asking my Grandmother to use the computer. A generational gap. But what we're getting stuck with is a guy who was around back then trying to communicate to a younger generation that we don't know what we're missing. Truth is, maybe he's missing what we're seeing. With regard to the decline of NYCB, I admit, I rarely go anymore, I've lost my love for the art form b/c to me it doesn't feel like art, it feels like a gymnastics/fashion competition. The companies seem to cater to the social set, since they provide the funding, and as long as people look pretty on stage (stick thin) they're all happy.
  6. But they have said they will be replacing the time with other ballet/dance companies. Perhaps NYCB will be able to go to another location (like in MA) and expose another area to their vast repetoire.
  7. [quote= There are two mistakes I noted - Katherine Tracey is noted in a caption as "Catherine" is that Kathleen Tracey?
  8. I saw that tidbit in one of the NY papers about Streisand. I asked a friend about it who's family is entrenched in the industry and academy members and she said it was true, apparently a few years back Streisand tried dinner parties and everything to sway votes, but unfortunately didn't invite everyone. As for the movie star vs. actor. Year after year, the women get up there and talk about the lack of roles and parts that are of substance. I don't think you can fault some of those women for that. Foster was a good example of someone who is an actor but a movie star as well (who has been acting far longer than Kidman) Holly Hunter, Naomi Watts, Marcia Gay Harden are actors. Most stateside consider Watts a movie star and she's known more here for being Kidman's best friend than her roles. Julia Roberts is a movie star, but she doesn't really take roles that require her to act too much. I think the public is always looking for the new "it girl" even Sofia Coppola to a degree is that this year. And Scarlett Johanssen as well, it takes one look at this month's Vanity Fair cover to show the lopsidedness of Hollywood.
  9. I do think ROTK is the lock for best film. Since they shot all 3 films in sequence and didn't give it for the first (or the second). If you consider the trilogy as one film, since it was filmed at the same time, it really is a remarkable achievement, regardless of whether or not it's fantasy. Although, after having seen all 3, I really like the first one the best. Maybe because there was so much "human" to it. I also think it's amazing that the film ROTK nominated for best film with none of the actors nominated, for that alone, I think a Best Picture would vindicate their work. I love Lost In Translation though and have to admit, was shocked to hear Coppola was the first female American nominated, I thought for sure Streisand was, but then again, Martin Scorcese still doesn't have one, so go figure. I'm also suprised Scarlett Johannsen wasn't nominated, she would have made Supporting Actress interesting, even if Zellweger is pretty much the favorite. I would love to see Theron accepting as Wuornos and kissing Brody, it would be fittingly appropriate!
  10. Peter Martins' salary listed in the NY Daily News as $579,000 a year in an article about other NYers salaries. AT adding the link: How Much Does He Make? Scroll down for Culture Vultures.
  11. I have to throw in some kudos for Sofia Coppola, for "LOST IN TRANSLATION" by far my favorite movie of the year. I'm glad it's not a Miramax heavy year, hopefully proving at least some of the Oscar nods can't be bought. I think the most interesting category will be the Best Male Actor, it should be neck and neck with Sean Penn and Bill Murray. I think Charlize Theron will win for "MONSTER" but I liked Keaton a lot in "SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE" Zellweger for supporting ( perhaps continuing the tradition of giving the Oscar the following year to the person who should have won it the previous") and ROTK is a lock for director and picture. A well rounded group of nominations though.
  12. I've been away for a while at school but coming home to find my mailbox stuffed with magazines, I flipped through a few of the last Dance Magazines and wondered where the heck the articles were. I have read far more articles in "Dog Fancy". It seemed the magazine was more advertisements. Which brings me back to my point, mainstream mag/newspaper critiques have gone the way of...well, they've gone away. It seems now instead of actually actually saying anything, they just give observations. I'm waiting for the ABCDF rating to be placed at the end of the reviews. It's terrible, but reading reviews has just become silly. "so and so danced a lovely adagio and by the way did you see who was in the audience..." is more commonplace. I wonder if it's because the audience has changed, not so much in that we don't care to read the reviews, but they became so "dumbed-down" that it's pointless to read them and now we have this situation. We need new blood in the critics area or at least those that who aren't afraid to draw some. Not that I want all the reviews to be mean or constantly criticizing, but I want to read something that makes me think.
  13. I believe Clive Barnes wrote in the NY Post something to the effect of "can't sing, can't dance, but she's a star"
  14. Is she still dancing?
  15. They called me last night to ask if I had gotten all the materials and check to see if I was happy with the programming and ready to order my subscription. I asked where the Balanchine was and the response I got was that Susan Stroman was doing a tribute piece that everyone is very excited about. And that Sleeping Beauty is coming back and Peter Martins and Christopher Wheeldon are also doing new pieces. I gave my 2 minute speech on my dissatisfaction and said I would buy my tickets individually for the Balanchine programs. Sorry, just felt the need to vent.
  • Create New...