dirac

Going off topic, but what I think she meant to say was that although once they had been lovers of a sort, ultimately their connection was something quite other and beyond (although not necessarily superior, I don’t want to appear to denigrate sexual bonds, which can be as intense and meaningful as any other kind). Balanchine was certainly very interested in sex – that was, finally, the reason she had to leave the company when she did. I’m amazed and impressed that such a young and unworldly woman was able to resist the psychological pressure applied to her by her boss -- and her mother. innopac, I agree, for the most part. Kavanagh probably got the line you quote in no. 1 from Meredith Daneman’s biography of Fonteyn, and it is regrettable that she elected to repeat it, when I should have thought that once was a good deal more than enough. However, if a given subject had a general reputation as a great lover, or the reverse, that is worth a mention – in moderation. As for whether a writer should discuss whether Fonteyn and Nureyev had an affair -- yes, in a biography of either party that aims for completeness and is not solely artistic in focus that is a question that should addressed, even though it’s been hashed over repeatedly. The issue, for me, is how much space should be devoted to the matter (in my view, very little), and whose opinions are sought and quoted, and the biographer’s approach generally. Daneman went on for pages. I hope Kavanagh spares us that.

Me, I think it’s an object lesson regarding blatant and egregious fraud. It’s interesting, of course, to have more background into the motives of the thieving pair. (Link to The New Yorker article.)

Yes, the scandal was extensively covered, as I recall - there were at least two articles in the NY Times about it at the time in addition to coverage in the UK press (here's a link to comment from the NYT dating from February of this year). I thought of posting a topic in Other Arts but never got round to it, so thank you, bart, for repairing the omission. Incredible in every sense, yes.

Well....not this educated person – I was drawn to the life from the poetry, which I first read in school. I happened to be in a Barnes and Noble this weekend and noted, as Drew did above, that a selection of Byron's poetry was on the shelf.

Not hardly.

Hmmmm....unusual topic, SanderO. As you note, this could veer far away from dance, so let's try to avoid that. Seems to me that there aren't too many body parts that are attractive in and of themselves. There are nice necks and not so nice necks, beautiful hands and ugly hands, and so forth. Do I notice ears? Occasionally, although not as a rule on the stage -- the dancers are usually far enough away to make even pretty large specimens look not so bad. I imagine there must be surgical remedies for those that are really, shall we say, outstanding. I think that divergences from the physical ideal - itself ever-changing - in general tend to be blurred in dancers rather than emphasized. Dancer X's legs may be a trifle short or his head a trifle large, for the ideal, but a performer's skill and presence can usually divert attention from such flaws.

Mashinka, thank you for posting the article and raising the topic. It may be that the piece (and the director of the collection, as quoted in the article) are just overstating matters in a reasonable effort to drum up interest in the show. I’m inclined to agree with Drew – I have the impression that Byron studies and biographies appear on a fairly regular basis, in this country anyway, going by what I see in bookstores and book reviews (those few that are left). I don’t have any need to reassess him, though – like you, Mashinka, I’ve always loved Byron. Ah, yes – “Gothic.” Interesting idea, good cast, total waste. Nice hearing from you, Drew.

I’m glad this obit notes her good singing voice.

No doubt Sheed’s book is excellent but he is also a contributor to NYRB. He's unlikely to receive a pan. The other reviews have been good, too.

Reading this obituary for Madeleine L’Engle reminded me that I had occasion a few years ago to re-read “A Wrinkle in Time” and it held up remarkably well.

Jane Wyman has died at age 93.

This film was made a couple of years ago but is only now making the rounds in some localities. It stars Timothy Spall as Albert Pierrepoint, the last Chief Hangman of England (not quite The Last Hangman as the movie’s subtitle states) and Juliet Stevenson, one of my favorite actors, as his wife. It was made in collaboration with Masterpiece Theatre and does have a certain constrained, careful, Everything in Good Taste feel to it. Pierrepoint came of a family of executioners and hanged over 600 people over a period of about 25 years, including Lord Haw-Haw, Ruth Ellis, and assorted Nazis (the latter at the behest of Montgomery, no less – he wanted to show the world how much more efficient and humane Britain is at killing people in contrast to Germany). It’s quite a story, and Spall is very good, even with the shadow of Charles Laughton hanging over him.

Thank you for the heads up, Leigh.

Gore Vidal said in his first memoir that the back and forth between Alicia Markova and Anton Dolin onstage could be quite vigorous: (“Put me down! It’s the third beat!” “Since when could you count?”) Etc.....

Thanks for sharing that with all of us, Mme. Hermine . richard53dog, good to hear from you, even on a sad occasion.

The scene where Malkovich breaks off with Pfeiffer is brutal – it’s as if he’s clubbing a baby seal. I love that movie. ("Give me back my shoe!")

'von Stroheim never completed "Queen Kelly," although I think some of his footage was eventually cut together with footage shot by other directors (which may be what's available now). Swanson had von Stroheim kicked off the film because shooting was taking so long. I think von Stroheim had shot about 4 hours worth at that point and was nowhere near completion. (von Stroheim turned in "Greed" at about 9 hours). I saw ‘Queen Kelly’ on TV some time ago in a reconstruction that was done with the intent of keeping as close as possible to Stroheim, and it included still photographs where footage wasn’t available – don’t know if that’s the same version as on the video. It may have included some of the footage shot later, but I don't know. Stroheim was fired at Swanson’s behest by none other than Joseph P. Kennedy, who was the producer of the picture and having an affair with Swanson at the time. I remember reading somewhere that although they shared financial responsibility for the picture, the contract was drafted in such a way that Swanson got stuck with any losses. I believe ‘Queen Kelly’ was released abroad in the early thirties. Jake G. would be perfect.

I'm with you, OldFashioned... You're not alone. I think the Christopher Hampson/Frears version is better overall. The ‘look and feel’ of the Forman version is superior IMO, but I thought the story and characters became muddled and lost a lot of the intensity of the novel. 'Dangerous Liaisons' has real passion. I also admired Glenn Close as Merteuil. No, she’s not dream casting, and Annette Bening is closer to the role in looks and age, but Close has authority, power, and unlike some others in Frears’ cast you believe she’s an aristocrat. Malkovich is wrong for Valmont in obvious ways, yet for me he’s far more interesting to watch than Colin Firth. (I suspect the role is trickier to cast and play than it looks.) Some of the early scenes where they are working hard for elegant viciousness are a tad strained, but as they begin to lose control of events and the gloves come off, they're a gripping pair. And these days it’s far too risky and expensive.

Yes, thank you for that, Farrell Fan. He was not only a wonderful singer but an ambassador for his art, like Sills -- one of those performers known to people who didn't know anything else about opera. An appreciation by Anthony Tommasini in the Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/arts/music/06luci.html

This sounds very bad.

Oh yes, I love that. Yes, it is very good, but is there one before that? 'What Price Hollywood' would make Streisand/Kris the 3rd remake, not 4th, unless there's one we haven't mentioned. Yes, and they had all manner of trouble with that one too, it was supposed to be loosely based on 'Golden Girl' about Jessica Savitch. Dunne wrote 'Monster!' about this movie, which was entertaining, but nothing so special. But they had been pretty fantastic with 'Panic in Needle Park', and really did their field work on it. At one of Didion's readings, she talked about hanging out with the junkies on the Upper West Side and seeing them shoot up. Although their best might be 'True Confessions', based on his novel. Dunne made some funny remarks about Up Close and Personal in an interview. He was asked about the notable divergences from Savitch’s life and he pointed out that no studio was likely to feature Pfeiffer and Redford in a picture about a druggie bisexual anchorwoman with a lover who beats her up. (A TV movie was made with Sela Ward at about the same time which hewed considerably closer to the known facts.) True. However, I’ve always liked the Philip Kaufman version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers with Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams that was made in the Seventies. A good idea well executed. Technically, What Price Hollywood? isn’t the first version of the story, although A Star is Born borrowed from it so heavily that litigation was contemplated. I can’t think of any other official remakes offhand. I thought the Vadim version could have been better, if Moreau and Philipe had been in better form. She’s not really good casting for Merteuil, though – Deneuve would be excellent, I’d think. I haven’t seen the miniseries – tell us more.

I’m still looking for someone willing to be the submissive object of my scorching rhetoric, but oddly enough there are few takers. I can’t recommend his biography of Paul Robeson highly enough. I’d also suggest going to the library and browsing the biography shelves – I seem to recall a lot of titles related to Chopin and Sand. You bring back fond memories of ‘Brideshead Revisited’ – the best Waugh could do in that regard was ‘he made free of her loins,’ which only made me think of Hormel and pork roast.

I like spending my Sunday mornings -- well, afternoons, I am not an early riser -- with the Times. Rather like Cliff and Jimmy at the curtain rise of the first act of Look Back in Anger, only my afternoon is pleasanter. Thanks for posting, everyone. Keep them coming.

Legend has it that Billy Wilder went up to Sydney Pollack after the premier of the remade "Sabrina" and said, "I hope you live long enough to see such an inferior remake of one of your own films." Mind full of razor blades, indeed! Thanks, sidwich. I hadn’t heard that one. (Of course, the original “Sabrina” was nobody’s masterpiece, either, and if Pollack had wanted to be rude to a distinguished colleague and senior citizen several snappy comebacks would have been available to him.)

Bart--'A Star is Born' is the perfect example of Remake Improvement and Remake Decay (I assume the 's were about the 2nd remake, which is truly a phenomenon, especially when you read, in John Gregory Dunne's account in 'Quintana and Friends', how thrilling it was to get off the project. The Streisand-Kristofferson disaster was the third remake (the fourth, if you count What Price Hollywood? with Constance Bennett). I think the 1937 version is pretty good. Janet Gaynor is too old for her role but Fredric March is excellent, as good as James Mason. Interesting that you should mention John Gregory Dunne in this connection. Dunne and Joan Didion later did a screenplay for a picture called Up Close and Personal that was in essence A Star is Born retold with television anchorfolks instead of movie stars.