dirac

I think he’s objecting more to the first act than the second, but on somewhat inconsistent grounds, as noted. I don’t like to come down too hard on critics outside the big cities, they have enough problems as it is these days, and often their writing is better than anything else in their paper outside the sports pages. Obviously, Nilsen wouldn't make fun of Hamlet. But part of the critic's function is to explain to his readership why 'Giselle' has survived for so long - by ballet standards at any rate - and the function of metaphor and symbol in an otherwise 'simple' story,and so forth.

There was also an Saturday Night Live version in the long ago with Steve Martin, refulgent in pink, opposite a languishing Gilda Radner, both of them shadowed by paranoid Russian agents. It didn't make you fall off your chair but Martin was funny.

Very well put. :blush:

I can see how all those frolicking peasants might be a bit off putting, but Nilsen's conclusions seem facile - I don't think he's thought it through. So the story is 'silly'? There are a lot of operas with 'silly' stories, too - shall we throw them all out? He covers ballet regularly for the Republic and I've read far worse from some regional critics, however. He has better things to say further on in the article and is looking forward to the Balanchine, so it may just be a matter of taste.

I don't really know that much about Wikipedia and its sources, but i've noticed mistakes and incorrect information in many of its entries... :blush: Unless you have some pre-existing knowledge of the subject it is wise to tread carefully when looking up things on Wikipedia. Glaring factual errors are thinner on the ground than they used to be but an unhealthy degree of bias, overt and not so overt, is common. I’m glad it’s there, though. I have seen 'helm' used as a verb before, usually in journalese. I don't care for it myself but it could wind up as standard usage one of these days.

Noting pedantically for the record that this doesn’t make such behavior all right or pardonable. And it would be a lot harder for him to get away with it today.

Sports are accessible in a way ballet is not. Games are regularly broadcast on both network and basic cable, and for a little more money your cable or satellite provider will provide access to almost any game you like. The television commentators, if they are good ones, provide analysis and explanation of rules, identify players and their histories, and in general give even the most naive viewer something to go on. Even when ballet is shown on television, viewers get very little guidance. I’m not suggesting play by play commentary, you understand, but a little something would be helpful to new viewers, I’m sure.

Is it after a Daphné du Maurier short story ? I remember reading something like that in one of her books... I don't like much horror movie styles (perhaps because I'm frightened too easily), unlike my husband who regrets that I don't want to watch "Night of the living dead" or zombie movies with him... And the only Roger Corman movie that I saw was his parodic "The Raven" (with Peter Lorre, Vincent Price, Boris Karloff and Jack Nicholson- what a cast !) Yes, Estelle, 'Don't Look Now' is based on a du Maurier story, unread by me, although I imagine the movie is an improvement. Nicholson made several movies with Corman (who’s well known for giving young talent opportunities, also they’re cheap, of course ), including his film debut, the original ‘The Little Shop of Horrors.’ There's this novelty item called 'The Terror' with Nicholson that Corman said they made because it was raining and nobody could play tennis. It has to be seen to be believed.

There are Draculas performed everywhere, as carbro notes. The only one I have seen, and it was on film, was Mark Godden's version for the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, which was made into a movie called Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary, directed by Guy Maddin. It looked pretty good, actually, at least what can be seen of it via Maddin's highly idiosyncratic methods. (I liked the film, I should note.) Can't think of any others offhand. In modern dance, there's Morris' vampire piece, One Charming Night.

Anthony_NYC writes: Along similar lines, miliosr's post about Mario Bava made me think about how different eras tend to find different things scary. Watching 'Wolf Creek' (and is that a thriller or a horror film?) recently made me think about how we seem to have a lot of movies,both genre and 'straight' about serial killers. There have been some in the past, of course, but I have the impression that the subject pops up much more frequently now.

You're very welcome. Keep the posts coming, everybody.

papeetepatrick writes: It’s still happening over at The New York Review of Books, although it’s not new and I can understand some of the underlying reasons for it. There was one piece recently about Scott of the Antarctic that was a real eye-roller. bart writes: I agree, and I see no reason not to try. It wouldn’t be appropriate for all ballets and all performances, but I think it’s worth the attempt. (Especially these days when people are working longer and harder and it’s all you can do to get to the performance on time during the week, never mind the pre-performance lecture.)

A good article about the company here.

I would also suggest looking at some photographs of Nijinsky in the role. Can’t help you with the steps, but there is no dancer who comes across more powerfully in stills, in this role (and Scheherazade) especially. I admire Legris, too. He comes very close to my idea of Nijinsky in the part, although I’d think the latter would indeed have a warmer presence. Legris achieves the desired tendril effect with his arms without looking as if he’s semaphoring. The trickiest things about the role, it seems to me, are expression and flow. You need to worry about upper and lower body continuously and avoid starting and stopping. My very best wishes for your success! Good luck.

I add my thanks, perky. It had crossed my mind to mention Don't Look Now and I didn't get around to it. The film looks very Seventies today, but in a good way, and the use of montage by the director, Nicolas Roeg, and the cutter, Graeme Clifford, is extraordinarily effective. The mood of foreboding is unremitting and still they manage to throw you.

Thank you for the heads up, innopac. I have not seen it. Could you (or anyone else who's familiar with it) tell us more about the film? I was expecting a traditional documentary based on the book... hadn't even realized Ben Kingsley was in the film. But it is a very moving film. Visually it is like a poem, smoothly blending images from the time, footage from films about the period, segments of performances of Shostakovich's music, Fellini like nightmarish episodes and acted scenes based on Shostakovich's life... with the music and spoken words weaving in and out. Connecting Shostakovich's Music to His Times Thanks for the link to the review. This paragraph caught my eye:

I’m inclined to agree. I really don’t enjoy getting spooked for its own sake, although once I start watching I tend to find it difficult to stop, if the movie is a good one. I like ‘The Others’ too. 'Scarifying' is a word, BTW. I haven’t seen it, miliosr. I’ll have to look for it if it gets shown this year. (The trailer for I Am Legend with Will Smith is in theaters now – we’ll see how that one turns out.) The new one was strikingly ineffective, wasn't it? Not that the old one is a masterpiece, but it works. (There's also a very old Saturday Night Live sketch that I remember with affection ('It's 666 - the Devil's area code!'). I'll watch Sam Neill in pretty much anything.

Thank you, popularlibrary, for reviving this remarkably vigorous thread and bringing the passage from Macaulay to our attention. I think the fouettes stay because they are generally liked (and expected, as already noted). Even audience members who know little else about ballet know about those turns, look for them, and appraise them -- for once, everyone can feel a little like an expert, a nice inclusive feeling and a Good Thing in my view. I agree with those who've said they like them when they are well done and don't care for them when they're not. I see yours and Macaulay's point about the music, but I think it works just fine even if it's not ideal or what was intended.

There is a difference between expertise and the kind of cliquishness under discussion, I think. It is a fine line and there is much crossing back and forth, but it's there.

Thank you for the heads up, innopac. I have not seen it. Could you (or anyone else who's familiar with it) tell us more about the film?

It seems to me, reading the sentence in its context, that Acocella is referring not to snobbery in the social sense but a kind of cozy insiderdom (we-understand-what’s-going-on-up-there-and-the-hoi-polloi don’t) that you do find in a certain kind of fan. ‘Clad in snobbery’ is not quite the same as saying that the art form itself is a form of snobbery, it’s saying that pleasure in ballet can take on that aspect. Off topic, The New Yorker doesn’t seem to give us much on ballet or dance in general any more, so it was nice to see a longer piece like this one (and this is a very good article IMO). (Wheeldon also inspired New York magazine to take notice of ballet, which hasn’t happened much since the magazine dispensed with regular dance criticism. We really do owe him a vote of thanks.) Especially if it would lead to fewer Draculas.

I first saw 'The Shining' in high school while babysitting my sister's apartment and I couldn't sleep that night. It's what all slasher movies aspire too, I think.

A profile of area resident Bob Klineman in The Aspen Times. Nothing new, but I enjoyed reading it. http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20071029/AE/71029020

That’s a very good question, Anthony_NYC. I think with pictures like ‘Zodiac’ (and ‘Jaws’) the distinction is blurred. You could argue that ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ is a horror movie. Throwing a couple of thoughts out at random: In a classic-style horror movie, there is usually an element of the supernatural involved – zombies, vampires, the devil, monsters, etc. That’s still true, but new style horror films, like ‘Hostel,’ are based in naturalistic – well, sort of – situations and everything just gets really, really horrible. (The original ‘Halloween’ has no monsters or ghosts, but still there’s no accounting for how Michael Myers survives and escapes, and no explanation for him – he’s just evil, as Donald Pleasence says.) There’s a strong element of fantasy in horror films. Thrillers tend to be more solidly based in realistic situations – no ghosts, etc. – and they aren’t as graphic.

Thank you for that review, popularlibrary. I enjoyed reading it. Let me take this opportunity to welcome you to the board. I hope to read much more from you. I don’t have any problems with biographers making judgments, even ‘moralistic’ ones, if it seems to be called for. If a biographer wants to point up the fact that throwing around anti-Semitic slurs, for instance, is a lousy thing to do no matter who you are, I’d call that fair comment (although it really doesn’t need highlighting, the act pretty much speaks for itself). Some of Nureyev’s behavior does seem to have been part of what he needed to function in the world, but some of it also sounds to me as if he may have been testing people to see what he could get away with or exploiting the fact that people with less power couldn’t hit back (sometimes literally).