dirac

Thanks for linking to a photo, leonid, I should have thought of that.

It wasn't very bridesmaidy, but a lovely dress nevertheless. (I suspect Pippa's derriere got the credit deserved by a well cut, well made gown, which can hide almost any figure 'fault'.) Re the bride's gown: what bothered me most about Diana's bridal gown so long ago was picturing the inevitable knockoffs of that huge, ungainly dress being worn by a 5'2", 195 pound bride; the mind reels. When Kate's dress is remade for the popular market (assuming they're halfway decently made copies), I suspect that dress will look good on a much wider variety of body types than Diana's ever could have. Agreed on all counts. I thought Pippa's frock was a trifle showy since after all the bridesmaid is not supposed to draw eyes away from the star of the occasion, but if Kate was cool with it then it's fine. If this latest wedding gown does nothing but steer brides away from the currently ubiquitous strapless numbers, the new duchess will have performed a genuine public service.

Uh, I think many people prefer the term “citizens,” these days. I’ve read differing estimates on how much financial benefit the nation actually receives and a lot seems to depend on how those doing the estimating deploy their math. I suppose it’s possible to view the royals simply as expensively maintained national mascots intended to prop up the tourist industry and sell tea towels. Mashinka has a point about the "bread and circuses" aspect of last weekend's happy event. It’s really up to the British public, of course, and as long as a majority of them are apparently happy with the arrangement then that’s that, I guess. However, I don’t know what would happen to my local PBS station, which seems to devote half its airtime to documentaries about various Windsors. It wasn’t very different on this side of the water, I think. The networks returned to normality reasonably quickly but the cable news channels went bananas, with the exception of MSNBC which after a point returned to their regular weekend broadcasting involving life in maximum security prisons and disappearances of pretty white girls. I benefited from the saturation coverage because I wasn’t about to get up in the wee hours to watch the wedding live, but it was all a bit much. But let us return to less vexing topics than economics. What did people think of Pippa Middleton's dress for the wedding?

And (since the subject of the royal family's "modernization" has been raised - I'd not be mentioning the following in this thread otherwise) the Queen has deflected some of the bad publicity her family have been getting over the past few decades by actually paying some income taxes and kicking some of the most notably useless of her relations off the Civil List.

I loved Princess Diana's dress. It was for a much bigger venue at a much bigger occasion. It was of its time, for a 20-year-old they insisted be a virgin, almost inconceivable now, and very '80's. I think she looked great in it, very much herself. The Duchess of Cambridge would have looked silly in a dress like that, but it's a different time, and thankfully, they have been allowed to have a different relationship: her dress allowed her to be within two feet of her future husband, and the slim silouette made them look like partners. She looked great, too, and very much like herself. I agree Diana's frock suited the occasion and the era, although not in a good way. I expect that if Middleton had truly had her own choice without the constraints imposed by the occasion, she probably would have chosen something less conservative with a sleeker look, although the V-neck is very Kate. She may lack Charles' musical tastes but if she also lacks some of his dottier notions the monarchy will do very well. If she makes it to the throne, she will be the first queen with a degree, and one hopes she'll bring some IQ points into the gene pool of a family that all too often seem to need them. Also noticed in passing that the Queen looks more like her Hanoverian forebears with every decade. The yellow was very becoming. And the grandsons could learn a great deal from their paternal grandfather's posture, even at his advanced age.

Howard isn't miscast; it was logical of Selznick to think of him. His type has fallen so utterly from fashion that it's easy to forget he was a major romantic star in his day, causing quite a few hearts to throb. He looks much older in GWTW's Technicolor than he does in Intermezzo opposite Ingrid Bergman around the same time, and just a year earlier he was a wonderful and very attractive Higgins in Pygmalion, so good Rex Harrison was reluctant to take the part later because he thought Howard's performance definitive. I'm sure the GWTW Blu-Ray does him no favors, either, nor any of the other actors who went through that stressful shoot. I'd also say that Ashley is not a milquetoast. Mitchell notes that he can ride, shoot, and gamble as well as any of the other young men. He just doesn't care to. He is weak, but many men would look weak stuck between Scarlett and Melanie; there's that terrible scene in both versions where these two strong women descend on him at once to dissuade him from starting a new life in New York, and Ashley can't bring himself to lay down the law. I guess that's a wimp, but I'm not sure he'd be any more attractive if he went against his wife's will and dragged her North, unless you imagine yourself in a marriage where your husband orders you around and takes no account of your wishes. As for lovable Rhett - bear in mind he tries on two occasions to lure Scarlett into a life of sin -- once by proposition, once by seduction. He tries to ruin her, in other words, before he gets to a proposal. As he tells her in the book, he's a bad influence. He may love her, but he's a dangerous guy.

leonid, I think there was a deliberate effort to make things less elaborate and I suspect that included the dress and the train, lest the economically hard-pressed populace come out waving signs less friendly than Union Jacks bearing the image of the happy couple. I think it worked well; I liked Grace Kelly's bell-shaped gown and it looks lovely in this more daring contemporary version. Much better than Diana's dress, which made one of the world's great beauties look like the Meringue that Swallowed St. Paul's. I tend to agree with those who object to the royal brothers' most unprincely shuffle. Especially Harry. Geez. I don't know how normal their lives will ever be but as Mel Brooks observed, "It's good to be king." Thanks, leonid, good to know.

Does the woman not know how to smile, even on a joyous occasion? I thought her sulk, or whatever it was, made her look ridiculous. Perhaps her condition had something to do with it. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/david-victoria-beckham-wedding-fashion Not to mention those heels she was wearing. In any case, I'll defend Posh since opinion in this thread is against her. If I were she, I'd say to you all: "I was there. You watched it on the teevee. Suck it up, nobodies."

This thread is dedicated to the royal wedding and comments on the ceremony and the broadcast, and related items, so please let's all keep to the topic. Thanks.

It was all most enjoyable. I adore pomp and circumstance, as long as some other country's taxpayers are footing the bill. Well, that's stretching it perhaps, but I figured a lot of BTers would be watching and enjoying the show, and it's not as if royal weddings happen every year. It was a bit much, I admit. The reruns are continuing even now....

I have to disagree again, richard3dog, sorry. I think de Havilland is excellent and very few others at the time or now would have known how to walk that fine line between sweet and saccharine as she does. Howard looks and acts far from his best but he's not bad, just not at his best, especially considering he really, really didn't want to be there, and in a couple of scenes he's pretty good. Going further down the list Thomas Mitchell is just right as Gerald even with the a touch of caricature and Barbara O'Neil in her few scenes does communicate Ellen O'Hara's gentleness and remoteness. Butterfly McQueen manages to bring something to her part in spite of the odds. I could go on but you get the picture, so to speak.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't really fit. My rationale is that royal weddings are a form of performance art and the service included a rendition of "Jerusalem." Great dress (Sarah Burton plainly took a good look at the one Helen Rose made for Grace Kelly), and hats! hats! hats! Anyway, share your views here, or not.

Thanks, canbelto, I hear the Blu-ray is great. miliosr, thanks. I'm not sure that I'd call GWTW an antiwar novel in the sense that Mitchell set out to debunk war, but it's certainly a vivid depiction of the devastation war can bring.I think her view of the war is mixed - after all, even Rhett Butler does wind up defending the Cause he's spent his time jeering at and the kind and generous Melanie is also one of the most unyielding of the Confederate matrons, even if she does speak up for pulling weeds from Yankee graves. The dated and/or repellent aspects of her depiction of slavery and the postwar status of the former slaves are obvious, but even within that frame there's more nuance than you'd think. (Putting the Klan in there was the publisher's idea, apparently - I wish Mitchell had put up more of a fight against that one.) Yes indeed - one of the great heroines of American literature, whatever the flaws of the novel. I love the movie, which improves on the novel in some ways (not in others). Perhaps. Or Rhett proves adamant and she returns to Atlanta after a decent interval, marries Ashley, takes back the management of her mills and spends the rest of her life ordering everyone around.

It is a fun article. I find that both book and movie get better with the years – I see different things in them and appreciate different qualities that weren’t immediately apparent to me when I was a kid. I’ve never had the impulse to collect memorabilia but I certainly understand it....

The novel is seventy-five this year. This NYT article is illustrated with a photograph of the wonderfully named Selina Faye Sorrow, wearing a homemade replica of the dress Vivien Leigh as Scarlett wears to the barbecue at Twelve Oaks. Apparently she will make replicas of the film’s costumes for a fee, and darned if I wasn’t tempted to ring her up and order a copy of the frock Scarlett wears during Christmas dinner while Ashley is home on furlough, maybe with the green bonnet Rhett brought her from Paris. On the other hand, it might be nice to get a red wig and deck myself out as Belle Watling’s shameless bad woman in red and purple and gold. Of course, eventually my family would have the men in white come and take me away, but it would be fun while it lasted. Her name wasn't actually Bonnie Blue Butler, but let it pass.

Very true.

Yes indeed, Bonnette, too soon. What a shock for her family. I first saw her in an American TV miniseries, "Scruples," a very entertaining adaptation of Judith Krantz, of all things.

Thank you for posting this, leonid. It's good to hear from you in this forum again. Initially the name didn't even ring a bell with me until I read your link and then I remembered. Sad story.

The lovely star of “Antoine and Colette” is dead at 66. RIP, Marie-France Pisier. The Guardian

I don't see that either Farrell or Balanchine did anything they had to make any public amends for. In her book she wrote movingly about their last talk on what happened between them in 1969. She said she thought he'd forgiven her for what she'd had to do and forgiven himself for things he couldn't help. Which seems fair enough. (In addition, lest we forget, there was an artistic dimension to all this; it wasn't a simple matter of an old man's infatuation.) Thanks for those quotes from Villella's book, Quiggin. That's what I was thinking of earlier when I commented that perhaps Villella had a point (about d'Amboise).

I've just ordered the D'Amboise memoir tonight, my stack of unread or uncompletely read books being tall already. So perhaps he says something to back this up. But while it's evident from many other sources that Farrell provoked jealousy, I recall nothing that suggests she disliked her rivals. I don't, either. Kent does say in her book that Farrell was generally silent in the dressing room while they made up before performances, but there's no suggestion that it was personal.

Off topic (and I think we’ve covered this ground before elsewhere) - but speaking for myself I learned a good deal more than that from Garis. I think the book has invaluable insights and his final tribute to the NYCB of the past is most moving. I took the book to be both autobiography and artistic chronicle and enjoyed it as such. Hmm. Interesting point, but it seems to me that in her own book, Farrell goes out of her way not to present Balanchine’s actions in a negative light. (She goes out of her way not to say anything bad about anybody, somewhat to the detriment of the book IMO.) She does talk about her occasional feelings of desperation, but never presents herself as his victim in any sense, certainly not in terms of sexual harassment. I would say that her book is in many respects a defense of Balanchine on all fronts – it’s their story as she sees it in retrospect, not necessarily as she saw it then. Even without the evidence of d’Amboise’s diaries it’s clear from interviews she gave at the time of her dismissal that she was upset with Balanchine, but there’s nothing of that in her book. No need to defend Balanchine from Farrell when she’s not attacking him. I think you are right that d’Amboise wanted to draw attention to some of the other muses, particularly Adams who has not really received her due in some ways.

Quiggin writes: Melissa Hayden said something similar to Nancy Reynolds for “Repertory in Review.” When Balanchine moved to the new, big theater, the emphasis in his classes changed. He wanted larger, sweeping movements, whereas before he had concentrated on aspects of technique such as the “articulation of the foot,” as Hayden said. You are right, and I was puzzled by that. When Farrell returned to the company in 1975 she resumed her place as the de facto prima, although things were different than they had been in the Sixties personally and within the company. Balanchine created or revived a series of great roles for her, and like von Aroldingen she had a new one almost every year until Balanchine’s illnesses. D’Amboise does indeed give the impression that although Farrell returned, Balanchine’s attention was already turning to new young dancers, and if you didn’t know better you’d not guess that many regarded the five or six years after Farrell’s return as the fulfillment and summation of the artistic partnership of dancer and choreographer. Eventually, sure, he was looking to the new girls.

He sure doesn't. Clive Barnes complained about that, saying that Balanchine was neglecting mature dancers like Hayden in favor of “the young and heartless," I think was his phrase. I’m also reminded of Tallchief’s story about teaching class and asking the young Farrell to lift her leg a bit. “Like this?” said Farrell as her leg swept upward. Tallchief said it was then that she understood why Balanchine wanted to work with the new young dancers. Most generous of her.

Hi, canbelto. That's certainly how d’Amboise presents the matter and it’s partially true (although I question the “insecure” part). In the case of Balanchine and Farrell the power really only went one way – she had as much power as Balanchine chose to allow her and when the crunch came it was clear where the real clout was. And by the same token Balanchine was not only Farrell’s revered boss, but one who did his best to exploit his own position to keep an unworldly girl virtually under lock and key. By 1969 almost everyone in Farrell’s life – Balanchine, her mother, even company management to some extent – was making every effort to push her into Balanchine’s bed. If I had only d’Amboise’s account to go by, I would know very little of that. (And, as d'Amboise notes with perception, it's what Balanchine wanted. Recall that amazing Bert Stern photo of Farrell standing in front of Balanchine waggling her finger at him, while he kneels worshipfully. Unsurprising that some of that would go to a young woman's head.)