dirac

Streep said she thought it was her last time up there, but I wouldn't be too sure. A tie with Hepburn is possible, if unlikely, but five is probably out of the question. I think Jolie can reserve displays of leg for the gaze of her inamorata without much in the way of public protest. There was also something incipiently Crawfordish about the masklike quality of her face last night. Emma Stone gets the Anne Hathaway Trouper Award for persistence in spite of a sullen unresponsive male partner.

Very good taste on his part. Brits consistently give more polished acceptance speeches. They have something ready without any preliminary blather about Oh-gosh-oh-golly-I-wasn't-expecting-this, say something graceful, and get off the stage. I was rooting for von Sydow to pull off an upset in this category, since he's a great, great actor and from what one hears a nicer fellow (Alan Bennett on Plummer: "He's his own worst enemy - but only just"). But that was most unlikely.

I was thinking that filled with seed Ms. Giuggioli's top would make an admirable bird feeder, enlivening the Firths' strolls through parkland, should they be inclined to take any.

Thoughts?

The general trend toward conservatism in the actresses' fashion choices has been widely noted as the red carpet show has risen in importance. Certainly things weren't very understated in the go-go days of Bob Mackie and Nolan Miller. I don't think it's altogether a bad thing - it's a great benefit for men that they're able to wear a sort of uniform and a very flattering one, even if actors usually manage to find a way to mess up, cf. Robert Downey, Jr. One could argue that classically cut sheaths perform something like the same function for the women.

Thanks for the link. It's pretty serious money for the actresses - the article refers to "actors" but it's mainly female actors who are facing the shortage of roles in the dramas and romantic comedies the article mentions and are thus looking to advertising for income. Not to mention that the reaction can be reasonably described as savage when an actress chooses an unconventional or less than flattering frock, which has led to a certain sameness and conservatism in their choices. The glory days of Cher and Geena Davis are no more. Altman tried it, more or less, with Pret-a-Porter.

Thanks, California.

Well, yes, using the known facts and historical background as a basis. Ah, Irving Stone. Not the world's greatest writer by any means, but he introduced me to a lot of history. I remember particularly enjoying his spirited defense of Jessie Benton Fremont. And "Lust for Life" is a good book, full stop.

I would suggest those are somewhat different cases, however. "Apollo" held a unique place in the canon, Balanchine worked on it with Stravinsky, the music was intended for ballet. It does seem to me that Balanchine's diddling with it is particularly curious. Parenthetically, in Balanchine's defense I can understand or any other choreographer would choose not to set all the movements of a symphony or a suite if it doesn't work for what he has in mind - he left off the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 3 for "Diamonds" and it's easy to see why. And I find his use of Mendelssohn far easier on the ears than Lanchbery's and Ashton's. Editing isn't necessarily the issue so much as how it's done, perhaps.

Thank you for reviving this topic, Kerry1968. Looks like I missed it the first time. Hands: Fonteyn did not have pretty hands in repose but she makes you forget that by the way she uses them. Makarova's are beautiful in all respects. Neck: Makarova Simply-Gorgeous-From-Head-to-Toe-Award: Moira Shearer Legs: If anyone mentioned Fonteyn's legs before I missed it. She doesn't have the extra long legs that are fashionable today but hers give the impression of length and are simultaneously slender and curvy, and when she straightens her legs her kneecaps vanish. Feet: Suzanne Farrell. Not the most beautiful feet, but amazingly natural pointes, as if they were truly part of her body.

Nobody else saw this?

Waiting patiently to hear more....

Coming up this weekend. Not too much suspense except possibly where Best Actress is concerned. Stars are seriously not what they used to be......

He also cut some great music. Farrell said in her book she was sufficiently surprised by that to remark on it to him - "You don't usually cut music like that." "No, I don't," he replied. End of discussion. ("Shut up, he explained.")

Brubach's article concedes the book is well researched.

Obviously O'Connor or any other writer cannot literally read the thoughts of the dead, no matter how self-revealing or not they chose to be when living. That is where the powers of a novelist and the imaginative liberty permitted the writer by the form in which s/he has chosen to work come into play.

As I said, going into people's heads is part of the novelist's task and writers have been doing it with impunity for some time now. As Quiggin says, the results aren't always edifying, but sometimes they're pretty good. If you want to be critical of an individual book, fine, but saying writers should never ever do this and suggesting as some have here that if they do their motives are invariably suspicious is going a bit far. Le Clercq has been dead for just over a decade. It's not a hundred years, but it's not a big rush, either. Yes, but Shakespeare wrote about Richard III 100 years after his death, and it was a history play. Toibin wrote about James eighty years later, and another example of this genre, "Summer in Baden Baden" by Leonid Tsypkin, which stalks Anna & Fyodor and describes their long and sensuous swims together, was written 100 years after Doestoevky's death. Tanaquil Leclercq's end date was 2000, she was not a significant historical figure, and she led a rather private life after her illness. That in part what makes this a somewhat tasteless exercise - also that, given the situation, the outcome would only be bad soap opera or 1950's B movie. Biographical novels most often seem like boxing matches with the facts when they're not being surogate autobiographies. They only work when the writer writes at the level of Toibin or Tsypkin - after that there's a steep falling off. People weren't holding off writing about Richard out of respect for the departed - like most dethroned kings after a new regime has taken over he became a sort of non-person at best, villain at worst, and there was that whole princes in the tower business. Thomas More wrote his History of Richard when the memory of his reign was still fairly fresh and More wasn't flattering, for obvious reasons (and even so he wound up dropping the work). The history plays weren't novels, true, but nobody was writing those in Shakespeare's England. (joelrw: I'm not sure if the comparison really holds with Le Clercq, whether you're using it positively or negatively, although I see what you're gettting at.)

I suppose the only thing one can do is: NOT buy such books - maybe not even read, review or mention them; and if one does, point out the inaccuracies and bad literary devices. I wonder if Ms. Brubach's well-intended "Talk" piece will stoke curiosity. I don't think Brubach's article will deter anyone interested in reading the book, particularly as Brubach has nothing really devastating to say about it. She admits that the writer gets some things wrong but did her homework and didn't or couldn't point to any particularly outrageous passages. She seems to object to the enterprise on principle, which casts too wide a net - some good works of fiction have been written by "going into the heads" of public figures as biographers cannot do. (I do not say this book is one of those.) Just so, joelrw. Glad to hear from someone who's read the book.

Good point. And often courses use anthologies, which are also generally less friendly to longer forms.

It's been many years but as I recall Woolley was rather careful about the degree and nature of Ada's contribution (which certainly existed and was important, as I said). Annabella was certainly a horrid mother.

It's definitely all right to revive the thread, Mashinka, thanks. I am also not a Brenton fan but I would certainly go to see this if only because of the Byron angle. I would also disagree with you, in part, about the Princess of Parallelograms. She is indeed most unsympathetic but that doesn't mean Byron treated her very well. Truly a catastrophic union. (I have also read that Ada's contributions to the early history of computers have been somewhat exaggerated, although she remains an important figure in that history regardless. But I don't know enough about it to judge.)

Well, I wouldn't want to hear Ronstadt singing that material, and a good croak was certainly effective with "Why'd Ya Do It?" On some of the other numbers, not so much for this listener. Agreed. I wouldn't have minded if she was still healthy and happy otherwise, but as it was she was strung out and apparently broke. I fear the phrase "good career move" that circulated when Elvis died did cross my mind when I heard the news.

I seem to remember from the press reports that Villella wasn't terribly focused on a succession plan -- a common situation when dealing with strong leaders.

Villella laid off dancers as well, and I understand they got the news in the mail..... I remember that, and I found it very distasteful. I recognize that at times, in any company, layoffs may have to happen, but the manner of those seemed especially cold. I was just making a joking comment that if, in fact, the justification for Martins salary being approximately twice that of any other AD was him choreographing ballets that quite frankly nobody (almost nobody? I'm sure SOMEONE must like them) wants him to choreograph, maybe it would be nice for him to donate some of that back. The emoticon was supposed to indicate the kidding/irreverent nature of the comment and I apologize if it didn't come across. No need for apologies, aurora, unless from my side. It sometimes seems to me that Martins invariably gets clouted with having laid dancers off when Villella gets off with a tap, but it could be me.

Villella laid off dancers as well, and I understand they got the news in the mail.....