dirac

It doesn't look as if this board is looking to make that kind of drastic change, given what we currently know. Things have to get pretty bad before the Balanchine Trust will yank the ballets and I expect the Trust will give the new AD a chance, at least.

Thanks, Bart B. You'd get into some trouble here too, if you wander too far off the reservation in our ballet-only forums , but we have Modern and Other Dance, Other Arts, and General Reading and Literature for other subjects.

He was gorgeous. Wonderful speaking voice, too. All the ingredients seemingly for a more distinguished career, but it didn't happen.

Thank you, Cristian. I haven't heard Ohlsson. Your energy makes me hang my head.....

I do understand the general principle and certainly I take your point, but it seems to me that in practice the talent gap between a Houston and a Faithfull does make a difference in addition to the fame and fan base gap you mention. Whitney simply had ascended too high, and her voice had declined too profoundly, for a comeback of that type to work. I know Broken English well although I haven't listened to it for years -- still have my old vinyl copy around the house somewhere -- and my reaction at the time was: good material, too bad it lacked a singer who could really do justice to it. I did like it enough to buy her follow up album, which name now escapes me, and it didn't work, not for this listener in any case.

I don't think such a thing would have been possible for Houston. Faithfull had/has no such vocal credentials and limited talents in all departments unless you count the flowerlike beauty of her youth, so there wasn't much to waste or indeed to come back from. A more apt comparison might be Callas' attempted comeback tour with DiStefano. There was simply nothing left.

I was surprised by how saddened I was by this news, which was not exactly unexpected, alas. A deplorable end for a beautiful woman with an awesome vocal instrument -- indeed an inescapable voice in discos and on the radio if you're of a certain age. RIP.

You're very welcome. Many of the outdoor dances did look as if they could be excerpts, so your speculation made sense. I also liked the conga line (I'm sure it's properly called something else) that occurs toward the end of the film. Reminded me a bit of Fellini.

I agree with the role of fiction and research, but disagree about sustaining personal hurt. Collateral damage cannot be ignored. One's personal legacy can be hurt. One's family can be hurt. One's dignity can be hurt. And, if you believe the Romantic ballets, or other sources, one can still sustain personal harm. I don't know what to tell you, puppytreats. I agree with atm711 that these projects often turn out to be more kitschy than not, but I don't quite get all the clutching of pearls. I expect Le Clercq's legacy to remain exactly as it was no matter what happens with this book, but maybe it's me.

Well.....she was an inspiration to Balanchine, trained in his school, and her place in ballet history is defined by the roles he made on her, not to mention the socially recognized link of marriage. If anything the title's a bit obvious. I agree with atm711 that these projects tend to be more schlocky than not.

It's natural to feel protective toward artists who mean something special to us. However, novelists do this sort of thing all the time, nor is it unusual for writers of fiction to do research. Le Clercq has been dead for some time and can't sustain any personal hurt. Fiction can be preferable to biography for the writer's purpose precisely because it allows greater freedom in the way of speculation and imagining than is permitted to a biographer (a responsible biographer at any rate). I have no idea what this effort will be like, but it's not by definition a disrespectful or exploitative endeavor. Thanks for the heads up, Neryssa - much appreciated. I hadn't heard about this.

That's lovely, Pamela. Thank you for taking the trouble to provide us with a translation. Sorry to hear this news.

The only movie that I know of that treats the border state bushwhackers with appropriate attention to historical detail is the very good (fictional) Ride with the Devil. (I've never been able to sit through the Brad Pitt picture on James with the long name.) This movie has little to do with the historical James, true, but it's an entertaining movie in its own right, unlike the dullish follow up, Return of Frank James, even if Fritz Lang was directing, and as you note there are a lot of nifty action scenes. But docking it points for historical accuracy is a little like getting annoyed with the weather - there was no way the historical James was going to get on film in the Hollywood of this era. Have fun.

Thanks, Cristian. How did you like the rest of the production?

My attention wandered occasionally but I didn't find it too long, For me the dancers' comments too personal but on occasion far too generic - the kinds of admiring things dancers tend to say about charismatic leaders. I had read that the bits outdoors had been partially improvised, but perhaps not: We developed this whole catalog of answers in the rehearsal room and then I started to envision how to film them. Because we didn’t have a stage or set at our disposal for these answers, I started to think of shooting these outdoors in the city of Wuppertal and I tried to find places for each and every one of these answers where the response of the dancing could be brought out in the best possible way. Review by Joan Acocella. Furthermore, these skits, the main ingredient in Bausch’s mature work, take second—or third or fourth—place in “Pina.” The stress in the film is on dancing, which, by the eighties, was actually little more than a decoration on Bausch’s stage. Some of the dance footage is good to have: the long clips of her gutsy “Rite of Spring” (1975) and of “Café Müller” (1978), in which she herself performs. But notice the dates. Though well trained in dance, Bausch got tired of it early. Unfortunately, she went back to it in her late work, where we see a lot of whirling, whipping, apparently tortured (by what? what’s the problem?) solos. These are much the same from piece to piece, and a big bore. If I am not mistaken, most of them were improvised.

From Fingers' OP: There are really two sides to that collaboration - what happens between the musician and dancer from their perspective and what the audience see from the other side of the footlights. Certainly I care, but I don't necessarily understand the nature of the interaction from where I'm sitting....

Broadway composers expect their music to be rearranged but they don't necessarily like it.Rodgers and Hart went so far as to write a song about complaining about such liberties ("I Like to Recognize the Tune"). For the record, most writers of show tunes don't/can't do their own orchestrations. Sondheim for years relied on the estimable Jonathan Tunick. In the days of Rodgers and Hart there was Hans Spialek and Robert Russell Bennett. (Weill did his own, and was surprised to hear that others didn't.) The late John McGlinn was a great advocate of recovering original Broadway orchestrations.

Thank you for posting, Fingers, and welcome to this forum. Your query should invite many interesting responses - speak up, everyone! The collaboration between musician and dancer is extensive, intense, and subtle, as anyone who knows the history of Balanchine's company would fully expect. And yet, my question is, does anyone really care, or does it really matter? As I'm not a trained musician I'm hors de combat in this discussion to some extent, but yes, I am sensitive to what I hear from the pit. We are fortunate in San Francisco with Michael McGraw at the piano - he contributed mightily to my enjoyment of Symphonic Variations, even if the dancers didn't seem to have quite got hold of Ashton, and the pizzazz of the company's Rubies. It is indeed unfortunate that musical soloists don't get their due in reviews - unless they've goofed up....

I saw this yesterday and liked it very much. The movie is not preaching to the choir, as Kathleen notes, but looking to draw in people who may not know anything about Bausch (whose work I know more from reading about it than seeing it). I'd certainly recommend it as general interest viewing; you don't need to be a dance maven to enjoy this film. I had mixed feelings about the 3D; there were some magical effects but also distancing ones, as if one was looking at a diorama. The talking heads didn’t bother me, even if some of the dancers came up with little more than bromides, and although they disturbed one’s sense of the length and shape of the works some of the commentary did illuminate what we were watching. The use of repetition was sufficient for this viewer to get the idea, but again my acquaintance with Bausch is limited. Loved the dancers’ improvisations alfresco. I didn’t care for the voiceover approach, where we get to watch the dancers as their eyebrows twitch, but it’s characteristic of Wenders. Message to all filmmakers making documentaries about dance troupes: WE WANT TO KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE. Dancers are anonymous enough as it is. Group credits at the end are unhelpful. At the very least the dancers who were interviewed should have been identified. Wenders might say that in making good cinema he is rendering Bausch's art accurately, more so than if he engaged in a plain vanilla archival performance effort. Certainly Pina isn't a sober assessment and it doesn't want to be; it's both a celebration and an elegy, hail and farewell.

The screenwriter's name is Abi Morgan ("The Iron Lady" also has a female director, Phyllida Lloyd, still a relatively rare combination). Mashinka, from what I've read of the runup to the war it wasn't nearly that simple, although I certainly agree with your general principle. It's a controversial matter, to say the least. My understanding, Colleen, is that Thatcher had more doubts before making her decision than the movie suggests. Certainly it was a risky decision and it took nerve to make it.

Hmm. I don't see it happening when I click around in your post, but it could be me. "Albert Nobbs" isn't playing in my area yet, but I expect it will show up soon - at least the trailer is showing at local cinemas. I do plan to go.

Hi, Cristian. I'm sure Close is as good as you say, but she's a very long shot. Not many people have seen the picture. The race is generally considered to be between Streep and Michelle Williams (yeah, I know). If not one of those two, it's likely to be Viola Davis. There are very few opportunities for the Academy to reward African-Americans in the Best Actress category and they may seize on this opportunity to acknowledge a well-respected talent, even if her role wasn't a terribly demanding one. Also she just won the Screen Actors Guild award, in an unfortunate strapless number, so she may have some momentum going in.

Mashinka, the islands were more or less uninhabited, true, and no other colonial powers seemed much interested in them at the time. However, regardless of the shakiness of Argentina's claim, Britain's is weaker. Of course the UK (and Argentina) are free to send their young people to die in any war they like. Seems to me the war in 1982 should never have begun and it was mainly luck that the butcher's bill didn't go higher than the actual population of the islands. If you want to fight another such, or send others to do so, be my guest (although I doubt anything will happen this time around).

Markova and Princess Margaret had the same beehive for awhile, I think.

Colleen, there would have been no British citizens there in the first place if Britain hadn't thrown out the people living there and repopulated the island back in the 1830s. But I digress. The US did support the UK during the war. Mashinka, given that Cameron has been making noises about Argentine "colonialism" - rather amusing given the context - I wonder if he isn't harboring Iron David fantasies of a nice little war that will distract people from tough times at home.....