dirac

Historically the Tonys have usually offered more consistent and genuine entertainment value than the other high profile awards shows. I didn’t think this year’s presentation, which I watched intermittently, was one of the best I’ve seen but it was good enough, and the ratings were a big improvement over last year, which is good news. I was not a big fan of the ‘Billy Elliot’ movie so if the stage version is an improvement I’m pleased to hear it. As a matter of general principle I don’t think very young actors should be pitted in competition against their elders and a special award for the three Billys would have been more appropriate recognition. They were perfectly charming, though. There was a tie in the Best Orchestrations category, which was one of the awards deemed too trivial for television viewers. Thanks for starting the topic, vagansmom.

Interesting topic, cubanmiamiboy. My feeling, I guess, is that if they love what they're doing and in turn are giving pleasure and inspiration to others, then that's wonderful. If I were reviewing them I'd be kind but honest about what I thought.

Good point, Simon G. Hadn't thought of that. I'm learning a lot from this thread.

Thanks, AnthonyNYC. I always wondered but never got around to looking it up.

I asked already, bart, thanks.

Thanks, EvilNinjaX. I had a feeling the filmmakers were going easy on us.

Thanks for posting, Paquita. I've seen a number of reviews but don't think it's made it to my area yet. Has anyone else seen it?

I'm inclined to agree with you that the orchid pollination business does seem to be a bit strained (I'm sorry, William Dollar's costume does not remind me of bees), although I enjoyed reading it and Daniels provides some beautiful images.

Education and money don’t always go together, alas. Would that they did. My thought was that Costello’s aging fan base, which probably has accumulated a decent nest egg by now, might already be expected to have been exposed to ballet at one point or another, and so featuring his music would probably be something of a wash in terms of attracting audiences unless he’s enjoying some sort of vogue with the kiddies that I don’t know about, which could well be true. Last time I checked in with him he was telling Joni Mitchell in Vanity Fair how much he liked Cole Porter and Duke Ellington, laudable opinions to be sure but not exactly in tune with the youthful zeitgeist. I also seem to recall a collaboration with Burt Bacharach. I think we got a bit spoiled, Simon G. There was so much genius and extremely high second rank talent in those days that perhaps we forgot that such an explosion of talent happens rarely, if at all.

I'd like to step in and echo Leigh's suggestion about looking up some of the old threads, such as this one. You'll find many answers to your questions and much food for thought.

I'm inclined to agree. I haven't listened to Costello regularly since the eighties, but I haven't heard anything of his before or since that seemed especially suited to ballet, although I suppose there's no harm making the experiment. Nor could a ballet of his music be expected to draw audiences, necessarily, as even at his peak Costello was never wildly popular. You don't have to call Tharp a ballet choreographer, which she isn't, but regardless of what one may think of some of her recent efforts she is a major artist with a significant body of work.

When J. Robert Oppenheimer became director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton he invited Eliot to stay, hoping Eliot would write something memorable during his time there. Eliot, perhaps inspired by Oppenheimer’s powerful martinis, came up with The Cocktail Party, which Oppenheimer thought was awful. It’s interesting to see Eliot using the conventions of the well-made play of the time for his own purposes but otherwise I can’t say I got much out of it. Some may call it Alcestis, I say it’s spinach. Four Quartets is a different kettle of fish, of course. You’ll love it, I hope. I think it’s a wonderful read, and for pleasure not duty. Thanks for keeping this thread alive, everyone.

Deaths in the family, existential crises, internal class rot, the Bosnian war....now I remember why I don’t go to that many film festivals any more. Thanks for mentioning it, LiLing. I haven’t seen that one for years but I remember it as a terrific movie. Too bad it’s hard to purchase these days. Quite a list, EvilNinjaX. A lot of intriguing titles. Mon Meilleure Ami sounds good – I’m a big fan of Auteuil.

I didn't know that. All I can say is...wow.

That's good to know. My Farrell jones kicks in at unpredictable times.... Thanks for the suggestions, all.

Thank you for those quotes, innopac. Dorati's memoir sounds well worth reading. Australia was indeed far behind the times, culturally speaking, in those days. Theatre performers like Gielgud and Olivier had similar experiences.

All true, SimonG, but as far as Balanchine was concerned, at least, he did a lot of these extracurricular activities from hunger. I’m sure his art benefited from them to some extent and he did not look down on this work, but if he had been able to concentrate on ballet full time, he would have done so. (I suspect the same is true for Ashton, as well.) I think you are right to emphasize that the classical choreographers of that era benefited from the closer ties between vernacular dance and the danse d’ecole. (Leigh remarked on this once upon a time.) What has happened in the last half century is that the distance between popular dance and music and ballet has increased. Something similar has happened to musical theatre, as Kathleen mentioned, which began slowly to die once its music was no longer mainstream pop. When Robbins’ original casts performed Interplay and Fancy Free, for example, they were doing dances very close to what people were dancing for fun and pleasure. That’s no longer true for the most part. I agree with those who emphasize the need for new work, mediocre or no. Dancers need it, the audience needs it. Right, Quiggin, and as you've pointed out on other threads, Balanchine's genius didn't emerge from a vacuum but from an environment full of intellectual and artistic energy. This has been a great thread to read. Thanks, everyone.

Renting is nice, but for me there are rentable movies and ones I'd like to own, and this title is one of the latter. Oh, well.

Thank you for the suggestion. I ought to have done so a long time ago but I was a) so technology challenged that I did not have up to date equipment and b) too lazy to go out and buy said equipment.

Boy, I made a bad mistake putting off my purchase of the DVD. I happened to look around for it and it's been discontinued!!!! Copies are priced at $99.00 plus. I'm sorry it's no longer available. Ballet fans without deep pockets who haven't seen it will be dependent on rentals. Fortunately my VHS is still in good shape, although frequently watched over the years.

My point was that it was a high profile commission, which gets more attention from press and public. (And you could argue also that it's a boost for the dancers to have the experience of working directly with Tharp and have her make a new work on them.)

Got it, Ray. I thought it would be a good independent topic after all, so I started a new thread. Re: the new Tharp piece. Tharp is a famous contemporary choreographer with proven high/low appeal, so I can understand why MCB would welcome a new piece from her. I have the impression that regional companies everywhere are doing her Sinatra pieces. 'Chopiniana' would probably be better for the dancers and the audience, though.

Ray raised this issue on the 'Next Balanchine' poll topic, and on reconsideration I think it would be nice to have a new thread on the subject, as it could raise a lot of new issues. Ray writes: What do you think?

Ray, you'll note that the present poll gives voters a number of options, and if you think the current ballet scene has much to offer and you're not looking for another Balanchine, you're free to vote and say so. The subject of where new choreographers might come from and how they develop has also arisen from time to time on the board, although I can't recall a specific thread offhand, but that could also come under the purview of this topic if you'd like to talk about it.

It's not a particularly good movie but the original show had its own problems – Lerner never stopped tinkering with it – so it's not exactly vandalizing a masterpiece. The original film of On a Clear Day was supposed to be a three hour movie in the old roadshow format, overture, intermission, the works. A full hour of the picture was cut. (The big musical was in its death throes and the studio was fearful of a bust.) I'm not sure how much difference the cutting made but it's clear from the finished product that it didn't help. No one involved is at his best, but I always liked the movie when I was a kid. Saw it again on cable a couple of years ago and although the subject matter is horribly dated now I still kinda like it. Streisand oversells, as do Cecil Beaton's period costumes (although stills indicate that some of Beaton's best frocks wound up on the cutting room floor). Montand, who can barely be understood, is a disaster. I get a kick out of seeing Jack Nicholson, who seems to have dropped in from another cinematic universe, and I rather enjoy Streisand's English accent. I dislike her more as Daisy, where the Yiddish intonations are annoyingly exaggerated and she's doing weird things with her posture, knees perpertually turned in, slouching in her chair, presumably to emphasize how naive and clumsy Daisy is??? If I'm listening at home of course I would choose the original cast album. But this is nowhere near as awful, say, as A Little Night Music, which is of a badness that goes beyond badness – Pauline Kael remarked at the time that it was as if Harold Prince had never seen a movie before. Bob Fosse must have been in seventh heaven.