dirac

Broadway will dim its lights tonight.

It's one of those movies, like Preston Sturges'. that moves on a succession of wisecracks and its conceits. Rogers kept up and was slightly ahead of the beat, so I thought it worked. But I saw it in an early Tom Luddy film series in the Bay Area, with all the films from Paramount Studios at one time, so it worked in concert. Wilder quoted on TCM from his bio says, agreeing pretty much with you Bart, Wilder also says he originally wrote Ray Milland's role for Cary Grant. I did, too. Rogers sustains the conceit successfully and she’s funny as a child even though she’s clearly not one. It’s not as if anyone was expected to believe that she was really twelve. Mary Pickford tended to look older than the other kids, too. Audiences didn’t mind.

I’m inclined to agree with leonid about that shot of Bolle, although I know you meant no harm, cubanmiamiboy. Not that it isn’t, uh, appealing.... I like your other choices much better, though.

Yet another great topic for this forum from Mel. You're really on a roll. Leigh Witchel writes: My feelings exactly. It's not great but it's not awful, and it's generally tailored to some need he sees in the reportory or to showcase a dancer or dancer(s).

Harold Pinter has died. Appreciation by Michael Billington. Obit in the NY Times. I wouldn't put him up there with Beckett, but an important and influential figure whatever you thought of him. R.I.P.

Yes, even by today's standards, fifty is no longer young, but it's quite true that it's considered younger than it used to be (a Good Thing in my view). I don't have any problem with young adults playing children on stage if they have the technical skill and artistry to pull it off. You can't get away with this sort of thing in front of a camera any more, although Mary Pickford built a great career on it and Ginger Rogers used regularly to impersonate children in comic and serious settings. I would interpret those examples as being not ones of literal infantilization, but as examples of mature dancers being called upon to play the roles of much younger people. (It is too bad that there are relatively few roles made for mature women to dance as mature women, "A Month in the Country" being the example that springs most readily to mind, or the role fashioned for Karen Kain in "The Actress" by James Kudelka.) That's what Fonteyn initially said about dancing with Nureyev, and that pairing turned out quite well.

Good catch, Nanarina! Not, strictly speaking, a dog, but definitely a canid. Not to mention 'Lady into Fox.' Great topic, Mel.

No need for a 'guilty' admission, Paquita. Many of us are also 'guilty.'

Thank you so much for telling us about what you're seeing, abatt. 'The Reader' is not in my area yet and so I cannot comment (I saw another and very different German responsibility picture, 'Valkyrie,' which turned out to be quite entertaining). Winslet is one of the great beauties of the screen as well as a first-rate acting talent and I for one would regard time watching her unclothe as time well spent, although I would hope there would more to the film. I hope others who have or will seen 'The Reader' will chime in here.

An appraisal from the Times.

Thanks, vagansmom and abatt. Sounds as if there's very little actual dancing in that two hours plus, alas.

The criticism of Culkin was far too harsh but I had the impression it was not so much due to his sex as a bit of 'taking the star down a peg' - quite unfair to a child in any case. The lips were a trifle distracting, I must allow, although I should never have committed that to print as a working critic. Kirkland was lovely in that Nutcracker, although I dislike the production. There is so little of her dancing available on commercial video.

What Andrew73 said.

I'm not sure if it was shown in my area or not - Comcast's services failed entirely for a week and so no broadcast teevee in our house. Did anyone else happen to catch it?

A where-are-they-now story in the Times about Bruno S., the star of "The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser" and "Stroszek." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/arts/des...20s.&st=cse

Sorry, bart and agnes. The book is a famous childrens' story whose title and author (Noel Streatfeild) have surfaced regularly in BT discussions over the years and recently news of the BBC broadcast was reported in the Links and elsewhere when this television version was first shown some time ago, so this was in the nature of a follow up topic. (Meg Ryan also offers a helpful summary of the "Shoe" books in You've Got Mail, which is also shown frequently this time of year.)

Good tip.

I saw the movie this week and although it is superior to your average biopic I didn't think it was as good as it could have been. Penn is not at his very best but he's better here than he's been in a long time and the supporting cast is fine. The movie doesn't put as much dramatic flesh on the bones as one might have hoped, either, but then with so many of Milk (and Moscone's) circle still around and about perhaps it wasn't possible. The San Francisco of an earlier era is not evoked as vividly as one might have hoped, either. I'd recommend it, mind - there's nothing much better out there at your local multiplex this season -- but it could have been a lot better. Would be interested to hear other views.

And Fontaine hasn’t exactly had what you call a rough life, which is also good for maintaining your looks. Years ago I read her autobiography, “No Bed of Roses,” and the title would have been accurate if you left out the “No.” Thanks for that link, FauxPas. Olivia had her questionnaire awhile back, so they’re even. Very good point about "Mad Men," too. It does have elements of “The Best of Everything Meets The Sopranos.” (Although that makes the show sound more interesting than it generally is for this viewer. I’m trying to stay with it but it’s testing my patience.)

Yes, that's it exactly, miliosr. I seem to remember reading fairly recently that Joan and she are still on the outs.

Thanks for letting us know, volcanohunter. I was wondering when it would be broadcast here in the States.

I take your point, miliosr, but that was actually what I meant by the term ‘relics,’ although your interpretation of the word is likely closer to Johnson’s. The fact that Crawford and Dietrich shut themselves away from the world because they didn’t want people to see them grown old is a very sad one, it seems to me. I guess you could say they preserved a sense of mystery, but I would rather have seen them leading normal lives in retirement at peace with the inevitability of advancing years and deriving what benefits they could from it. I remember reading an article about Dietrich in her last years and it was beyond depressing. (Garbo seems to have been happier in her non-working years.) We were referring rather coyly to Johnson's sex life, GWTW. It has been noted (in print, I should say, by several biographers) that he was gay. There are always gay rumors floating around about any number of male stars, true, but in Johnson’s case they seem to have been well founded.

He was a huge success during the war years but then all the big male stars came back and Johnson was eclipsed rapidly, as the NYT obit noted. I wish Crawford and Dietrich had bowed out before they became relics, but they didn't, alas. But aging gracefully is a dicier process for women. Yes, I was a little surprised the obit was not more candid. This thread went off the reservation a long time ago. It's past saving.

Sorry, Helene, didn't see your post regarding the anecdote from Denby. I don't have the book in front of me, either, but that's also how I recall it.

Thank you for the heads up, kfw. I hadn't heard about the Independent Lens broadcast and will look for it.