dirac

What issues are those, BTW?

Thanks for posting this, Estelle. I had not heard of him. What a distinctive voice.

I do like her singing on the Anyone Can Whistle cast album, though,especially the title tune. She knows how to "act" a song so well. We lost her too soon. I always liked her.

"Something familiar, something peculiar,/Something for EVERYONE, a comedy tonight!" "Everybody ought to have a maid,/Everybody ought to have a serving girl,/A loyal and unswerving girl to putter around the house." -A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum I think richard53dog's point was that Sondheim isn't known for his hits, something which is partially because of the changes in pop music that took place in the last half of the twentieth century and, it must be said, he may just not have the knack, or let's say he matured in a theatrical environment where he did not have to cultivate it. I'm inclined to agree. Rodgers could write lyrics just fine, but he was clever enough to know that there were others who could do it better and work with them. It's a special talent when you can do both on more or less the same level but I don't think it affects his status as a composer that he did not insist on doing his own. I agree, to a point. Sometimes for me Sondheim reads better than he sings, but it's probably just my taste. Very nice discussion, everyone.

I know someone who saw the original production (normally I wouldn't trust anyone who claimed this, but he's pretty reliable and he said he could understand the show's failure - there were problems with the book and Guardino's and Remick's pipes. Fortunately, Goddard Lieberson was farsighted enough to record the original cast.

Stephen Sondheim turns eighty this year. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B3...tertainmentNews Related item: http://www.theatermania.com/new-york/news/...once_25734.html He must feel rather like the Last of the Mohicans.

Much obliged for these alerts, volcanohunter.

I'm not at all sure that academy membership has anything to with the matter, Patrick, but if I'm mistaken would be interested to know. Rohmer was included in this year's montage. They usually manage to find a spot for famous directors, even if some of them are foreigners.

I have a feeling, despite the non-apology apologies, that the Academy knows it screwed up. Apparently it didn't occur to the people responsible that Fawcett had friends and they were going to annoy the O'Neal family. At least Fawcett has well connected people who will speak up for her. Less heralded personalities like screenwriters don't. As for offscreen behavior it's hard to ask that the Academy take that into consideration. Otherwise the list would be even shorter. Yes, indeed.

Thanks for starting the topic, Quiggin, and thanks for the link, richard53dog. I hope those who see the production will tell us about it.

The papers aren’t doing these things for the fun of it. People are reluctant to pay for their product and classified ads are moving online. That said, management in many places have cut off their noses to spite their faces by cutting back on local news and stories that people are still interested in going to them for. But in other places the readership is losing interest. Gavin Newsom said publicly that nobody would miss the San Francisco Chronicle (and given its current condition, many probably won’t). But a community loses a lot when it loses its paper(s). Even in their current situation many of the print reviewers still do better than the bloggers and online reviewers, although the Internet will likely catch up. How they’re going to get paid is another question, but then most writers aren’t paid anyway.

The Academy in its various explanations regarding the omission didn't offer up lack of membership as a reason for the omission (which was indeed intentional). My understanding is that she was a member, however. I think that's rather rich. Elsewhere the Academy was offering up the excuse that there isn't enough time to include absolutely everyone and they have to whittle the names down, which is a little more reasonable. But if you can include Brittany Murphy than it's pretty silly to leave out Fawcett. I think Jackson was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Song category once upon a time, so you could use that as a justification for shoehorning him in, but the same rationale for not including Fawcett could be used for Jackson. Obviously the Grammys would be the place for him, not the Oscars. My feeling is that this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot, and I myself didn't think of the omission while I was actually watching the show, but Fawcett did have a legit career in the movies.

This looks fascinating, Ray. Thanks for the links.

It is a wonderful interview, even without the four letter word applied to the Bush clan. Glad you liked it. The Auchinclosses are old society, but they're not old money, BTW. There is no great fortune in the family and if they didn't marry money they had to make it.

Yes, that's a great idea for the Emmys. It should happen even if it doesn't. Fawcett wasn't a big movie star and her movies weren't always that great, but she appeared regularly enough in decent feature films to justify inclusion in the roll call of the departed on Sunday. But the Academy usually leaves out several qualified people every year and it's likely carelessness, not a deliberate snub.

I'll defend the unfortunate Mr. Rutter. I agree that the review is wrong-headed but I wouldn't call it pretentious and I think it is well meant. My view may be colored by the fact that while browsing for the Links I often come across "articles" or blog reviews for online publications that are not only much more ill-informed than this one but so sloppily written and edited that every once in awhile I don't bother to link to them, they're just that worthless. I also rather liked his response to the person who asked him whether he'd rather watch figure skating or ballet: That's not so bad. I don't know how long Rutter has been writing, of course.

I find the internet is great for looking for things you already think you want, but while browsing in person I often come across items I never thought about. Also, Blockbuster is keeping some of the locals gainfully employed, which I appreciate in these hard times - my area has been especially hard hit. There's room for both. I don't think pulp is bad in and of itself, and indeed of the movies that actually had a shot at Best Picture this year I would have chosen Inglourious Basterds after Avatar, although as I mentioned on the thread for the movie I had problems with it.

Roberts was fine in Erin Brockovich. She did have the advantage of a better script to work with than Bullock (and a better director, Steven Soderbergh). I would certainly disagree strongly with the characterization of Erin Brockovich or Norma Rae as pulp. Norma Rae in particular is a very good film and stands the test of time well. It also had a fine part for Ron Leibman, who could go over the top but was just right here. There is a kinship between the two movies, and at the time EB was referred to as Roberts' NR - in both instances an actor associated with lighter roles plays a working class heroine and wins and Oscar. Kidman was excellent in The Hours. The role was a little small – I don’t think she was onscreen longer than thirty minutes, and Streep’s character really carries the main part of the movie – but she was very good. I think her main rival for Best Actress that year was considered to be Renee Zellweger for Chicago, a much worse choice. But then I thought the best performance in The Hours came from Jeff Daniels anyway. Kidman gave a terrible speech that year, though. Sorry, 4mrdncr, I remember the name, but that’s all. It sounds great from your description, though. Thanks for contributing, everyone!

There were still copies of The Hurt Locker on the shelves at my local Blockbuster as of Tuesday, which I continue to patronize. ( I appreciate having a place to browse, although Netflix is great to have around. Hang in there, Blockbuster. )

I agree for the most part. I thought she did as well as anyone could have with the material on hand and given the competition in the category this year it’s not an outrageous choice by any means, although in a better season I might feel differently. (For me the role was still cringe-inducing but it was no fault of Bullock’s.) They don’t give out Oscars for romcoms like While You Were Sleeping, where she was wonderful, so if she can get one this way it's okay by me.

vagansmom writes: Up in the Air was overrated a bit, but that may be because serious mainstream movies for and with adults are thinner on the ground than they used to be. I wouldn't call it a Grade B film, though (that's The Blind Side). I regret to say that I did think Clooney was phoning it in this time.

The Oscars often work that way, though. I would say that Jeff Bridges’ award this year was a body of work award, although he was good enough in Crazy Heart. Streep has a Best Actress and a Best Supporting, but in the context of her career that’s not as impressive as it might be. (If she doesn’t win again outright she may well get a Lifetime Achievement Award eventually.) I’d have to disagree respectfully with your family circle. It’s not at all clear, to this viewer anyway, that Hurt Locker is inherently superior to Avatar. I like to see little pictures win on principle, but Goliath isn’t always worse.

Hi, vagansmom. Thanks for chiming in. If greatness were the criterion, you’d have to strike off a lot of Best Picture winners over the years, although it should be noted that the last few, The Departed, No Country for Old Men, and Slumdog Millionaire (The Hurt Locker is good, too) have all been excellent movies. I don’t think Avatar lost because of quality or lack thereof. Sci-fi/fantasy films tend to be harder sells at Oscar time historically and James Cameron is not winning any Miss Congeniality awards. I had no particular rooting interest this year but I would have been fine with Avatar winning even if it meant watching Cameron yell “I SEE YOU!” from the podium. Bullock was okay but neither performance nor film was first rate. She ran a good campaign for the award, though. I enjoyed Streep as Julia Child but didn’t think she was at her absolute best either, although I’d have given it to her as a body-of-work award. She’s due for another statue and I agree that she probably did want this one. It’s nice to be nominated -- but. Katharine Hepburn won three of her four Oscars late in life, so there’s still hope. Thanks, sandik. I don’t know much about the animated short category and this is good to know.

It is a shame. Balanchine's genius didn't lie only in steps, and his staging would have been interesting to see. As you say he did want to revive it with Midler and von Aroldingen, so he must have thought well of it himself (or had new ideas for it). No harm in a new production with new choreography, though. I agree. I don't think anyone who doesn't follow the theater knows much about LuPone. But it's a New York production, so her presence will have local interest.

Thanks for posting, Sandy. I hope others who see the production will tell us about it.