dirac

Thanks for the report, cubanmiamiboy. I've never heard Ashkenazy conduct, but I love his Chopin. Yes, indeed.

innopac, I think the concluding dance is a nod to Bollywood style. Danny Boyle, the director of “Slumdog Millionaire,” has said he was influenced by several Bollywood films. Freida Pinto is indeed too pretty and well kept, but although many would have been better she didn't spoil anything (and she really is lovely). The age thing went right by me, I thought Patel and she were very appealing together. Good point. The role of the brother is also a familiar movie type, as well.

I enjoyed seeing the "Slumdog" crew go up to the stage for the ensemble award - their excitement was touchingly genuine and everyone spoke well. (A striking contrast to Kate Winslet, who's still pulling that "I'm at a loss for words, burble, burble" routine when all season she's been a favorite to win something and has been pulling in nominations and wins right and left. Prepare a speech, woman.)

Thanks for posting, everyone. I missed it. sandik, were you able to see it on Sunday?

miliosr, hello. Montalban's name did come up in the Patrick McGoohan RIP thread, because they both died within a day of each other, so Montalban's career was discussed a little there. Thanks very much for posting the news, though.

Thanks for the link, Farrell Fan. The article was actually posted in the Links on Friday. I know this is confusing but the Times' publication dates on their links no longer conform to the date the articles actually appear in the paper, so reviews in Thursday's paper get posted in the Links on Wednesday, for example. It's potentially confusing but we try to conform the dates in the Links to avoid even greater confusion. I thought Bentley's article was fine. She can gush and she has a tendency to coyness, but I can live with that, most of the time. Those who read the article in the print edition of the Review will note that this article was given choice real estate on the front page. Nice. I'm somewhat surprised that Laura Jacobs is surprised to read that power pirouettes were not a strength of Pavlova's. Keith Money explores Pavlova's technique in some detail in his book and notes a memorable conversation Petipa has with his young dancer, telling her not to fret about tossing off turns, because her gifts lie elsewhere.

cubanmiamiboy, there's a quite long thread on Baronova's book here. You might want to revive it and add your comments!

True, sidwich, but I think there was a time when there was a pretty clear distinction between Best Supporting, which was where the Fay Bainters and Walter Brennans got their recognition, and Best Actor and Actress. (I can think of examples such as Olivia de Havilland in Gone with the Wind, who was probably better known than Vivien Leigh to US audiences, winning Best Supporting. On the other hand, Melanie is clearly a supporting role.) I wonder if such an instance may have something to do with the necessity of finding enough nominations to fill out the Best Actress category. There tend to be fewer really substantial roles for women than for men in films likely to be nominated for Oscars these days.

Quite right. Thanks for reviving this thread - it's a good discussion!

The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is reissued by Virago. The story behind the story.

No, I don't think I made a genuine effort. I certainly hope I can spot a superb set piece if I see one.... Wilkie Collins did get the detective story ball rolling. Sayers is another writer I never really 'got.' But then I tend to prefer my detectives boiled a little harder, although I used to read a lot of Agatha Christie.

I tried Durrell in college and all I can say is that I didn't make it to the good stuff. Maybe I'll try again one of these years.

Hello, Giannina. I haven't seen 'Frost/Nixon' yet. Hoffman's role in "Doubt" is also an example of what I meant earlier - he is a co-star in the picture, not a supporting actor. (I thought Streep ate him for lunch, though.) Another historical precedent for Davis is Beatrice Straight's win for "Network." And Judi Dench's Elizabeth in "Shakespeare in Love" was barely there.

sandik, we were posting at about the same time, so I didn't see your post beforehand. But I agree.

Interesting article, innopac. I don’t agree, as it happens, but it’s useful to have the case put with such emphasis. “Slumdog Millionaire” is a “feelgood” movie, but I didn’t emerge afterward with the sense I’d been crudely manipulated and my buttons pushed, which is generally what happens after I see films described in this way. The picture juxtaposes scenes of poverty and cruelty with comedy and fairy tale elements. It’s a tricky line to walk but I think it works. There’s no question, however, that if the picture didn’t end happily – sort of- it would be a nightmare. But I don't think a feelgood movie has to make you feel good all the way through it. I think it's deserving too, abatt. There are quibbles, of course, but I went in to the theater with my guard up and surrendered more or less unconditionally.

Hi, sidwich. I forgot about Woody and Diane. I think they had broken up long before, but the principle is the same. I think you may be right as far as Jolie and Pitt are concerned. (Pickford and Fairbanks were truly The People's Choice.)

Addressing bart’s other question, it seems to me that the nominations this year are mostly Naked Oscar Bait, like The Reader and The Curious Case of Brad Gump, and one indie underdog, Slumdog Millionaire. The big popular hits, The Dark Knight and Iron Man, didn’t make the cut. Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood’s entry for this year, was also snubbed. I have no great preference this year. I haven't seen Gran Torino yet, and I'm interested in seeing Revolutionary Road. I was suspicious of Slumdog Millionaire, figuring it would be the Mumbai Juno, but it really is pretty terrific. One other note: there was no Big Musical this year.

There’s no real precedent for the Jolie-Pitt menage, I think. The spectacle of a couple of unmarried stars of equal firepower with a bunch of kids is a new one even for Hollywood. I can think of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, who were both nominated in 1967 for Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Hepburn won. T&H might have other dual nominations, although not necessarily in the same movie or as a couple, since their liaison wasn't formed until the early forties. In 1939, Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh were both nominated for Wuthering Heights and Gone with the Wind, respectively, and Leigh won. However, in both cases the couples were publicly discreet. Tracy never divorced his wife and both Olivier and Leigh were married to other people in 1939. Even if that had not been the case, couples living together without benefit of marriage didn’t flaunt it in those days. I think Lunt and Fontanne both got nominations for The Guardsman. back when. They made it to the altar first, though. Let’s see....Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks are another example of two big married stars -- in terms of sheer popularity, the biggest -- but the Oscars arrived too late in their careers for them to get nominated in the same year. Otherwise it probably would have happened. She won once, and I don’t believe he was ever nominated. Diane Keaton and Warren Beatty were both nominated for Reds, but even they weren't really the tabloid deities that Pitt and Jolie are. That's about all that spring to mind. Any others? In any case, I don't think this is Jolie's year. I wouldn't vote for Pitt myself but he could win.

The consensus is that Ledger is a shoo-in. My own sentimental druggie favorite in this category is Robert Downey, Jr., who was a stitch in Tropic Thunder playing a risky part. I will allow that I thought Ledger and The Dark Knight a tad overpraised, although Ledger was excellent. My complaint about both Ledger and Downey is that they're really stars in leading roles shoehorned into a category traditionally designated to honor character actors who don't fit into leading roles. In recent years the award and nominations have often gone to big stars as a sort of consolation prize for not qualifying for Best Actor or Best Actress, and I think this is a shame.

I knew her only through her postings here on BT but will miss her knowledge and her writing.

leonid, no worries. If swords weren't crossed once in awhile, we'd have no discussion. I take your points, but also suggest respectfully that 'distinguished choreographers' is not the same category as 'dancers.' Croce knows as much about Balanchine's family background as anyone else around, I expect, and I also believe she's talked over the years with quite a few dancers. My point was that, without having read the piece, I didn't think Croce meant to insult or cast aspersions and that the bar for genuine erudition is a pretty high one.

It's a movie to watch again (and again). The scene with Peter Lorre finally cornered is terrifying, and he is unforgettable. The Last Mistress was one of the most interesting movies I saw this year.

“Erudition” means learning that is deep as well as broad (and even the possession of an advanced degree would be no guarantee that the holder of that degree is erudite, especially today). I haven’t read the article, but going by the quote as given here Croce’s not calling dancers stupid or ignorant. She’s saying that a range of reference as extensive as Balanchine’s is rare in the profession.

Thanks for posting, Rosa. I really enjoyed The Moonstone back in the day but never got around to The Woman in White. Would be curious to know what Collins' other works are like. I'm currently reading A Coffin for King Charles by C.V. Wedgwood, which is about guess what.

The Oscar nominations are announced.