dirac

I thought she was good in general except for an overreliance on a little Excedrin headache frown. I didn't realize you were speaking only of that one scene, though. I would agree with you that it was not a sequence that relied much on acting per se....

Thanks for this. I always enjoy reading your reports.

I think you can take the quote marks off. She was good. And I'm not her biggest fan, to say the least.

It used to be common for mature actresses to play Juliet on stage. In fact, there was an old saying that an actor wasn't prepared to play Juliet until she was about We seem to be casting the net for "menopausal" a bit widely in this thread. Women of 40 are not pre-menopausal in the sense it's generally used. They're women of 40. What I think is meant is that stars, especially film stars, have a briefer shelf life than their male counterparts and this phenomenon is related to their perceived sexual appeal. All of which is true (although the cutoff age used to be even earlier - 35). I certainly agree with you, Quiggin, that this shouldn't be so, but it is, certainly in film, which is why you often see female movie stars of 40 plus migrate to the stage. But times change. But even on the stage today you probably wouldn't see a 40 year old or even thirtyish Juliet. I guess it's hard for me to take inspiration from a septuagenarian who doesn't know it's time to get off the stage, or at least time to make sure there aren't any cameras around while she is. Cristian had a wonderful experience and I envy him. But we know from other examples that people aren't having that wonderful experience watching dancers who can't handle the dancing demands any more. Off topic - these are not cartoon parts. They are two light comedy parts and one dramatic role that other actresses would would love to have. I think the point is that Streep is the default choice for the (few) choice roles for an older woman. Part of that is because she's so good and is still box office, but it also has to do with the fact that there just aren't that many roles to go around.

Very good point, macnellie, Blanche is probably about thirty, but from the beginning she's been played by actors in their mid-thirties or older. Probably of the first Blanches Uta Hagen was closest to the character in age. Vivien Leigh was slightly younger than the role's originator, Jessica Tandy. (She's deliberately photographed in the film to look older.) So the 'aging' of Blanche took place fairly early on. The mature actresses who play her now aren't playing younger in the way fortyish actresses used to play young for, say, Juliet in the days when casting older women in young roles was more common than it is today). These days such casting for Blanche is probably necessary, because thirty in a woman is much younger in social and cultural terms than it used to be. (Blanche also wasn't anything like an old maid; she has been married, she wasn't left on the shelf. Her desperation has different sources.)

Vividly put, Simon. Alonso does look a bit sad. After a certain point age really does matter.

Sally Field is a good actress but she's too old for the part, and along with you I wonder how she'll mesh with Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis is the obvious choice given the competition but although I admire him greatly I haven't always admired him recently. But then America isn't currently producing the actors of a certain national type who would have once been cast in the roles DDL has taken on of late. There are no Hustons, no Fondas.

On the stage chronological age matters far less, and skilled actor-dancers can be as young or old as they like until if and when they push it too far. Things have changed somewhat in that regard, as the bias for youth has increased in the theater as well. (Vivien Leigh remarked late in her life that when she was young middle aged actresses could play youthful and sexy women on stage convincingly and it was an accepted convention, but that was apparently not going to be true for her and her age cohort.) Giselle always seems to have been the role of choice for older ballerinas, but not because they played Giselle as aging but because it was an ideal role for preserving the illusion of youth. I have a little trouble seeing Giselle as a variation on Blanche because Blanche's type didn't exist back then, at least not as Blanche lived her life. She doesn't belong in a period piece. No young nobleman would look at an old maid of the village of forty plus as a sex object no matter how well preserved, it wouldn't happen with girls around to choose from. People would laugh at a middle aged woman dancing and frisking like a much younger woman, unless she had enough property to make people clam up. She'd be a figure of fun, trying to be younger than she is. Very thought provoking idea, though, Cristian.

Steven Spielberg is directing a new movie about Lincoln, starring Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field. Mixed feelings about this one.

Aronofsky mentioned the "Repulsion" connection during the early stages of the publicity campaign, but even if he hadn't the resemblance would be difficult to miss. Portman's childlike mien and enormous eyes are reminiscent of Mia Farrow in "Rosemary's Baby" - it was hard for me not to think of "Black Swan" as a sort of "Rosemary's Tutu." Aronofsky is talented but in this film he's not much more than a Polanski manque. He has visual style and "Black Swan" looks great but there's no sense of dread and as the movie careers off the rails it induces giggles, not chills. He also lacks Polanski's empathy for his terrified young women; Deneuve and Farrow are tormented but you don't have any sense that their director is getting off on the torment. With Aronofsky I wasn't so sure. Still, one of the most interesting movies I saw last year and it seems to have given ballet a very nice boost,probably not for long but welcome nonetheless. I also liked Clint Mansell's score. Barbara Hershey's performance deserved more attention than it got. She matches up well with Portman and she scared me silly.

Tamiris worked with the Group Theater in productions with Garfield. Julie was also the name by which Garfield's friends knew him. As an actor he hadn't the widest range and I'd not have been looking forward to his Nijinsky, but a distinctive presence in his best movies. Sad to lose him so young, first to the blacklist and then heart disease.

I have the impression Pavlova is holding her own, at least here in the States.

This is a great link, Ray. Thanks!

Thanks for telling us about it, cubanmiamiboy, and cheers to the musicians for volunteering their time.

verged on profound If he wrote like this all the time, which is definitely more understated than we almost ever get, I wouldn't complain. I don't know, that last quip of Macaulay's sounds uncalled for, given that Millepied is heterosexual. Can anyone who saw the ballet explain the line? Is it really justified by the choreography, or just a cheap slam? Or am I misreading it? That was how I read it, as well. It sounds very much like a cheap -- slam is a forceful word, I'd go more for "shot," in this case -- I'm sorry to say, or at the least a rather pointless jibe. Apart from the name dropping (not wildly interested in whoever Macaulay was sitting next to, myself), a perfectly good review, though.

I think this is a characteristic (not necessarily a fault) of highly structured genre movies generally. True, but I wonder if that "The Company" qualifies as a movie of this type. The plot is not tightly structured, to say the least, and there's very little in the way of narrative drive pushing the movie forward to the next dance sequence. Thank you for mentioning "Tanner 88." That was a great show, owing not least to the writer, Garry Trudeau. We should not follow Altman's bad example in giving his writers short shrift.... puppytreats, I haven't looked back to see what I thought about the swing dance back when, but when I saw the movie again I got rather a kick out of it.

Thanks for posting that, richard53dog. Guess Laurents changed his mind again. Sounds like he was busy right to the end:

I agree and I would add that Guillem's high extensions did not involve straining her body or distorting her line (at least not in the Swan Lake I saw). I will leave Skorik aside because this was a rehearsal video and, indeed, completely decontextualized from any performance in which a particular pose or moment can be fairly assessed in its full impact, but generally speaking when dancers distort the classical line to get a high extension in a nineteenth-century work, it looks not only unharmonious to me, but strained and awkward. I think I understand what Angelique is seeing in the Skorik video--but when I have seen the torso shift like that in the theater for a high side extension in a nineteenth-century work, what come to the fore for me is the sheer mechanical shifting of weight. At its worse, it can look ungainly. Certainly, in some twentieth-century or twenty-first-century works an ultra high extension with a slightly distorted classical line may seem acceptable or even effective especially when the emphasis is not so much the position as the quality of movement (energy, power, etc.). At New York City Ballet, I don't necessarily get as concerned about proper alignment. And I myself some years ago defended a Dvorovenko "six o'clock" arabesque penché at the end of Giselle against some sharp criticism on this board--I thought she made it suggest her aspiration heavenwards. So, I am not the purest of purists... I am also sure there are dancers of such poetic genius they can make you go along with any quirk (Skorik and Somova -- neither of whom I have been fortunate enough to see -- may be that for some) but those kind of quirks should be the unexpected exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, many of us feel that these distorted and strained lines are becoming the rule even in nineteenth-century ballets and, depressingly, nowhere more so than in the company that, for many of us, once was the embodiment of classical purity--a living and vital classical purity. Like Helene, I find the claim that this style of dancing is a response to what "western" audiences want to be very unconvincing. There have been Western ballerinas with unusually high extensions (Guillem, Bussell) though they had less distorted lines than we are discussing, but they were/are not the "western" norm. Farrell danced an entirely different repertory and would seem to be an inappropriate comparison. More to the point, as far as responses to the great Russian companies go...could Somova be taking more of a pasting from the public in the U.S. and Britain? Even Guillem has never been fully 'accepted' in the United States as the great artist I believe she is or as a popular "star" (like Osipova) and I distinctly remember that when Zakharova was unveiled early in her career, with no-holds barred extensions in Sleeping Beauty, she, too, was criticized whereas the less over-the-top Vishneva was warmly received and has many American fans. (Of course, now she dances with ABT which adds to her American fan-base.) The "audience favorite" guest artists with ABT this coming season are Osipova and Cojocaru--both of whom have clearly been trained to press their extensions, but do not do so remotely to the extent of Zakharova and Somova. I think it can hardly be said that these are dancers who are not popular with wide ballet-going audiences. And in the generation just prior to the current generation, who was a bigger Kirov/Mariinsky star in the West than Asylmuratova? Now: is there some larger phenomenon going on--a "gymnastics-ization" of ballet that has in different ways affected top companies across the globe including the Mariinsky? That is a thesis I would find easier to take seriously...though it is an argument that needs some nuance as well. Agree with this in full. It's interesting that Farrell in her controversial youth was the object of similar accusations about hyperathletic distortion. Fascinating discussion, everyone.

It’s not necessary to be one of those who “typically don’t like Altman films” to note that all Altman pictures do not achieve the desired effects consistently. Some thought that was true of “The Company.” @ AnthonyNYC: I saw "The Company" again on cable awhile ago and didn't feel much differently - some very good sequences, some indifferent, disappointing in the dance department. But then I was sorely disappointed by "Nashville" and my poor impression did not change with another viewing. Altman's virtuosity is never in question but I often question the uses to which he put it.

Altman's output was inconsistent. Even in his prime one good film was often followed by a turkey. As is noted in the threads linked to by Helene, "The Company" was Neve Campbell's project, not the director's; he was a gun for hire, although it has plenty of Altmanisms as you noted, puppytreats. I think subtlety was the point, but I agree that it might have been a little too offhand, and the momentousness of the change could easily be missed. (I liked the scene in "Black Swan" where Natalie Portman is late for rehearsal and we register her distress when she shows up, breathless, to see her rival dancing in her place and making quite a good impression.)

I think that's a rather dubious twist myself but we'll see. Wonder which is supposed to be the brainy one....

Voigt slipped and fell the night of the premiere and landed on her rear right at her entrance in Act 2. In a subsequent performance one of the Walkueren fell off the machine after the big Act 3 opening. So there are definitely some hazards associated with this complex production. Not like the old days. I'm sure Flagstad would have greeted these stage directions with the Norwegian equivalent of "I am so not doing that."

Yes, it does. I, too found the first half or so a slog - it's mostly devoted to political satire and while I understand that's important to Bulgakov and the book it didn't pull me in as the story of the Master and Margarita did.

I add my thanks to bart's, YouOverThere. Nice to hear about these performances. Had no idea Gurdjieff had dabbled in choreography.

He's new to the part and will only get better, I'm sure. I think he said that this was only his second "Walkure" Wotan and that when he does the "Siegfried" Wanderer next year at the Met it will be the first time he has sung the role. Very impressive. For the longest time it seemed that James Morris was the indispensable Wotan for the Met and many of the big houses in Europe. This doesn't seem like the type of production where singers relatively inexperienced in their roles are best served, so it's all the more credit to Terfel, Voigt, et al. that they seem to be rising above the challenges.