dirac

Thanks, Mel. To say that the show was inferior to van Druten's effort is really saying something, since I think the show was based on van Druten's adaptation, which had its own problems. Isherwood was surely within his rights. Issyvoo is not in fact clearly identified as homosexual, bisexual, or indeed anysexual in the original story, although the mere omission is enough in itself to suggest it. (He is, after all, a camera.) However, theatrical and film adaptations tend to want to spell everything out.

That's a good point. I would say in that respect she might bring some different flavors to the part. Rose is monstrous but she doesn't have to wear it on her sleeve. My Fair Lady and Gypsy are both good movies but hardly unassailable. I don’t have a problem with remaking either one of them. Based on the evidence before us I’m not inclined to assume Streisand is ego-tripping. If anything, she’s taking a risk and I would guess she’s looking for one more challenge after a storied career. (It’s off topic, but the first two Fockers movies were decent commercial comedies, better than some of the other stuff De Niro has chosen to tax his long-suffering fans with. Haven’t seen the latest one but Streisand looks great in the clips.)

Thanks for posting, AnthonyNYC. Streisand is a walking ad for plastic surgery of a certain price as she looks wonderful these days, but I would think it's too late. On the other hand, for a good new version of Gypsy and to see her in the role I would be willing to suspend disbelief. The voice thing is no big deal, studio help could take care of that. I think she could do it. No harm in doing a few tests and seeing how she looks and sounds. Streisand has worked well with directors in the past (not all of them, granted). I don't think they would have too much trouble lining up someone if they do go forward. At least we know it won't be Rob Marshall, thank goodness. Movie musicals are expensive propositions these days, which is part of it. I'd just as soon see Streisand over LuPone, Peters, et al. I'm also thinking Natalie Portman for Gypsy. She's pushing thirty but looks younger and might be a good matchup with Streisand.

I think they made her American for Liza. Since Isherwood's original conception was already distorted, it didn't really make much difference. I admire the movie. It gets better with the years and I like it better now than when I first saw it. Fosse was a genuine cinema prodigy and he makes what he's doing look easy when it's not by any means. Agreed.

Postlethwaite was great in The Usual Suspects, also - his odd looks were perfect for the mysterious Mr. Kobayashi.

Yes, and the songs are too good, as well. You might as well hire somebody who can sing them properly. In addition, the original Sally Bowles had no talent whatsoever, which was quite an important point, and any musical version has to ignore that completely. I think if it’s clear that Sally will never make it, that’s enough for the musical’s purposes. I agree, sandik. She will never be my idea of Sally but I thought she was wonderful in the movie and I’m not a fan.

It's too bad, especially about Postlethwaite, still relatively young with years of good work ahead of him. He was marvelous in "In the Name of the Father."

Thanks for the summing-up, miliosr. I don't think it would have been impossible or even unlikely for Garbo or even Monroe to have succeeded on stage if there had been no camera to place in front of them (I'd say the same of Taylor although she isn't a cinema phenomenon in the same class with the first two), because born performers will get in front of an audience in almost any era that doesn't ban them outright from performing but there is no doubt those two had a special relationship in front of the camera that hasn't been matched before or since - truly in a class of their own.

Thanks, aurora. Some interesting comments.

I like that remark in the comments suggesting that the Guardian send a reporter out to gauge local reactions to "The Wicker Man." "Well, yes, but it was all so ridiculously exaggerated. Our schoolgirls stage nude fertility dances round campfires only on very special occasions and the mainland policeman wasn't burnt alive, we just singed his fingers a bit."

More follow-up from the WSJ -->here. Yes, I put that one up in the Links this morning. Simon is right, such incidents are a hazard of the holiday season. I'm glad no one was hurt, including Martins, of course.

If I misunderstood you, Patrick, then of course I'm sorry. I trust it is superfluous in me to point out that I did no cutting and pasting, literal or otherwise, or deliberate misrepresentation of any kind. My point was that your friend made a choice for herself that she can reasonably defend, and she made it for herself, not for others. She doesn't like Blow-Up because of what she perceives as its sexism, and you don't think it is sexist or at any rate don't think the sexism is blatant enough to be objectionable. (If I am misinterpreting then by all means say so.) Interesting you should mention that, because I think that is part of Professor Gribben's intention. As much as I disagree with him, he is not trying to suppress or even supplant The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, but bowdlerize the work to make it accessible to a class of readers who might never otherwise open the book and perhaps eventually induce those readers to seek out the real thing. Of course, the road to hell is paved with et cetera.

No, a movie glorifying the Ku Klux Klan and the terrorizing of helpless African-Americans would certainly not go over well today. Some people just lack objectivity, I guess.... Exactly.

Based on what you wrote, your friend is not proposing censorship. She's saying she has a hard time liking the movie because of the sexism, just as there are blacks and whites for that matter, who can't stomach Birth of a Nation (there were protests at the time of the movie's release, and nobody would accuse the 1915 zeitgeist of being too politically correct). If she were suggesting suppressing or censoring the film it would be another matter, but I see nothing wrong with saying "It may or may not be good or great, but the element of X is too much for me to take, and I don't like it and would rather not watch it." In regard to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, I should think the response of a good teacher would be to explain that this is a classic work that a student of American literature should know, and not only is it not racist but quite the opposite, and give the reasons why.

Thanks, Quiggin. I expect also that teachers may choose not to teach the book because they don't want to deal with the potential trouble from students and parents who don't get it, an understandable position if not a particularly heroic one. Off topic, but I too thought that the NYBR piece on the relevance of criticism was poor, but given some of the commentators selected (Katie Roiphe, who supplied the guff about "beautiful writing, " et al.) what else could you expect?

Some time ago in one of our "What are you reading?" threads, the topic of teaching The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to today's young students arose. Apparently one point of view on the matter has been taken to its logical conclusion. Thoughts?

Wow. Thanks, Mme. Hermine. How did you come across this?

Two pieces of sad news. Anne Francis Pete Postlethwaite

Thanks, Pamela. I did watch the broadcast, as I do every year. I always enjoy it. In all honesty I'm fine with just watching the orchestra and so I generally find the dancing a bit de trop, but I don't feel strongly about the matter either way. The only thing I really objected to this year was the design of the ballgowns worn by the girls - the front was cut away so you could see their legs and it just looked as if you were getting a peek at their knickers - a sort of Easy Access Ballgown for the convenience of the gentlemen. The dancing itself was agreeable.

That makes sense to me: Kirkland, even in her distinctiveness, recalls Kent more than Farrell. Some (underline: some) elements of her off-stage career even recall Kent's slightly defiant relation to Balanchine though, in that case, if one is to trust Kent's memoirs, it led to three children -- not a career with ABT and a Ballet Academy with a commitment to story ballets. (This presumably is not a matter of influence.) But I'm pretty sure about the Croce remark...and of course one can be influenced, if only unconsciously, by someone one loathes! But certainly it's easier to picture Kirkland with Kent as her model. Off topic: It doesn't matter what Kirkland does or doesn't think of Farrell personally. Farrell's influence on NYCB during a certain period was as pervasive in its way as T.S. Eliot's over poetry in his day - he was in your head whether you wanted him there or not and the available evidence suggests that applied to Kirkland in relation to Farrell, too. (Kent was also a strong influence on Farrell's dancing in the early days.) Not all critics agreed with Croce that Farrell had become a caricature of herself when she left in '69. Returning to our moutons, I would say that Macaulay is free to hail Mearns in any way he likes, if he can back it up with action. I have not seen Mearns but I thought he made a good case.

Might be nice to stay closer to the topic. Looking forward to more reviews of "Black Swan" from BTers who see it.

I agree on all counts, Drew. And not pedantic at all, BTW. I don't have any problem with calling a particularly foolish artistic choice idiotic but to state baldly in a review that "X is an idiot to do Z" is not only rude but as you also noted above, the reader has to parse it because it doesn't mean anything on its own. (In general, colloquialism can add liveliness and spice to a critic's writing.) Also true, Quiggin. I'd be curious to know more about the Koch business, too. It doesn't seem likely on the face of it - Ratmansky was the obvious choice to make a new Nutcracker for ABT.

Thanks, miliosr. Look forward to reading your thoughts in the new year!

Not necessarily. And the "fluff" often allows for a surprisingly wide range of dance expression, culminating in great dance movies. Must be a pretty small cohort, because so far the movie is coining it at the box office by art house standards (and it's now in wide release) and it's attracting a fair share of younger men. Probably a combination of good word of mouth, at least from some, and a skillful marketing campaign.

Thank you for that report, kfw. As the surviving leading Beatle, McCartney outranks any chat show host, but Winfrey might have been seated next to the Obamas if not for their well known personal and political connection, noted by Patrick. Her race was likely a secondary consideration.