dirac

Ray, I must dissent on one point. Patrick Bissell wasn't hot? I had to get out my oven mitts just to put up a poster.

Carolyn Brown has published a memoir. Looks very interesting. Review by Nancy Dalva in The New York Observer.

Thank you for posting, papeetepatrick. I am only familiar with Baudrillard through the reading of a couple of articles in isolation, but I found him as you say to be very accessible. I do hope that, as the obituaries come in, they will talk about the remarkable variety of his work and not focus too much on his equivocal relationship with Uncle Sam.

The only one of those I've seen is "Anna Karenina" so I'm in the same boat as you, YID, but if it were me I'd be curious to see "Red Giselle."

I wouldn’t necessarily expect Rose to bring up Ross or Kaye, but I was also surprised that he didn’t know “The Turning Point” was Baryshnikov’s first Hollywood venture, and an Oscar nomination is the sort of thing that no good host ordinarily fails to mention. Very poor briefing on the part of his staff, definitely.

I didn't see all the nominated pictures in the foreign language category, but of the ones I have seen Water, Pan's Labyrinth, and the one that did win, The Lives of Others, would all have been worthy. As it was, Pan's Labyrinth was recognized pretty generously for a non-Hollywood product. It's a fine movie. Others have commented on the film in the 'Movies of the Season' thread, I should note.

Helene writes: I was mildly pleased to see Murphy lose - another overhyped performance IMO. The performance that really stood out for me in ‘Dreamgirls’ was that of Anika Noni Rose, although she had less to do. I haven’t seen Little Miss Sunshine, but Arkin certainly deserved one of those body-of-work Oscars that the Academy gives out from time to time. canbelto writes: Very fine film. Difficult choices to be made in the Foreign Language category this year.

You may recall that some time ago the ceremony was changed so that instead of saying upon opening the envelope, “And the winner is....” presenters would say, “And the Oscar goes to...” in order to de-emphasize the competitive aspect of things. When Kidman presented the other night, she used the older phrase, probably unintentionally. I think we’re all agreed child actors should receive their fair share of praise – it’s just a question of how. The late Roddy McDowall was once interviewed on a documentary about child actors, he of course being a very well known one, and he said the thing to remember was that the child is not there of his own free will. He may enjoy the attention, he may ‘want to’ in a sense, but he’s there in makeup at 6:00 am because some adult is pushing. It is a difficult matter, but acting isn’t the only profession where they sometimes have to start off very young. Jodie Foster, appearing poised and gorgeous as usual, appeared late in the broadcast to remind us all of how well a child star can turn out. The horror stories we know, too. You don’t see it as often as before, but it’s still around. I saw one just the other day, can’t recall the movie now. I have the impression it's current practice to show the names of better known leading cast members first, with the newbie bringing up the rear preceded by an "and" ("and Cassie Clutterbuck as Fiona"). Or, as sidwich notes, using the slightly anachronistic 'introducing' as a joke.

It was Kidman, wearing a bright red dress with a bow that seemed ready to swallow her. I agree. Brutal truth! I won! You lost! Bwa ha ha! A lot of the kids have been around for awhile before they get nominated, though, although that's an interesting idea, too.

Yes - but. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Sure, people get over what they have to, but I suspect that it’s still no fun to be in head-to-head competition with small fry. As for the kiddies, years ago when Haley Joel Osment was being nominated here and there for ‘The Sixth Sense’ I recall one ceremony – can’t recall which one, I think it was the Golden Globes – where he was clearly upset, at the point of tears, when he lost. I didn’t enjoy seeing that. (I read in the paper later that Harrison Ford went over to offer consolation, which was nice of him. ) And I think a Breslin would have as much of a shot as a Fanning, if the picture was notable enough.

He also spoke of the director Taylor Hackford persuading him to do "White Nights." It was indeed an excellent and engrossing interview. I didn't regard the discussion of the defection, say, as a rehash, although I'm sure it was for Baryshnikov. The show is aimed at a general audience and thirty years have passed; a generation has grown up since then.

I was put off by her acting as well as her singing – she had two expressions, onoe pleasant, one petulant, and the latter had to do for anger, sadness, disapproval, etc. If the performance hadn't been so overpraised none of that would have bothered me, of course - I'd have made allowances and cheered her on. However, given the competition in the Best Supporting Actress category – a couple of foreign actresses, however excellent, that nobody had ever heard of, Cate Blanchett, a recent winner in the same category, and a little girl – the win was a foregone conclusion. I did enjoy the look on Beyonce's face when Hudson won, though. (I think nominating children along with adults is absurd – awkward for both the youngsters and the grownups. I wish the Academy would go back to its old practice of giving outstanding child actors special Oscars, which recognized the kids without putting them up against performers who’d spent a lifetime mastering their craft.)

The cleaning up process really started with the old movie – David O. Selznick was a civilized man, he obviously wasn’t going to make a picture exactly as Margaret Mitchell wrote it, what with her “capering” and “childlike” slaves, full throated endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan, emphasis on the topic of horny black men with designs on white women, etc., etc. (I love the book and always will, but I still wince to think that when I was a kid I was not bothered by those things as I should have been.) All that stuff didn’t disappear exactly, but it was elided, downplayed, or eliminated entirely, without violating the spirit of the book or its true strengths, even though to a modern eye the racism of the film still looks awful. Today, however, you couldn’t do that, the times have changed too much, and ‘cartoon’ is a very likely description of what will be put on stage if they proceed with this. Alternatively, they could try a ‘bringing out the subtext’ approach, putting the slaves front and center, which is pretty much guaranteed not to work.

Hard to believe that the witty, erudite, and knowledgeable people who post to this site aren't doing that much reading. Keep us informed, please.

Balanchine didn't fire him, technically, although Mejia was put in a position where he had no choice really except to quit. I think also in this context of the Diaghilev-Nijinsky- Romola dustup.

Useful categories. Incoherent and random? Not so you'd notice. I certainly wish I could be as incoherent and random on the topic as you, Klavier. :blush: papeetepatrick writes: If the critic is permitted the latitude and the space, absolutely. Otherwise not mentioning it is just one more little assist in a collapse of standards.

My recollection is that it got mixed reviews at its premiere also, but I could be mistaken. I am not Stoppard’s biggest fan but if I were in the neighborhood I’d be plunking down my dollars, too. When you do see it, please tell us about it -- I would be very interested to hear your opinion.

I’d say that’s true in some circumstances, but I see also how the works by Wendy Wasserstein and Tina Howe mentioned just prior to that statement might not travel well for other reasons entirely. I’d be interested to hear opinions from regular playgoers (and others, too, of course).

Thank you very much for posting, richard53dog. Looks like an interesting season. Hmmm.

Well, Christopher shouldn’t have been quite so stunned. Most of the British nominees in question were outside chances at best. (You could tell by Peter O’Toole’s expression when the cameras closed in for the customary sadistic closeups of the losers, however, that a) he thought he was going to win and b) that he wanted it really, really bad – the last nominee I can recall looking that crushed was Michael Caine when he didn’t win for ‘The Quiet American.’) There was a lot of talk this year at the ceremony about how ‘internationalized’ the awards were and how great this was. I didn’t think so – the Oscars are American, after all, which doesn’t mean raving chauvinism or barring the door to keep the furriners out but the awards should, ideally, provide a showcase for what’s good in U.S. filmmaking as BAFTA does for the British. I thought the talk of internationalization was a tacit acknowledgment that Hollywood is failing in certain departments, and it was certainly noteworthy that many of the best pictures of the year all seemed to be huddled together in the Foreign Language category. (For the record, I was pleased that ‘The Departed’ won.) Under normal circumstances I would have been happy to see Mirren win but I was so sick of hearing about Helen, ‘The Queen,’ the Queen, and how great they all were that I was hoping for Penelope Cruz or Meryl Streep to stage an upset. I thought Mirren’s speech was fine and her dress was nice, although I still don’t understand the purse thing. The Brit I do think should have been higher profile who wasn’t was Sacha Baron Cohen. I understand he was willing to be a presenter if he could be in character and the Academy chickened out. Their loss, and the audience’s.

One of the best things in Mailer's book, absolutely. Monroe received a very gracious compliment from Sibyl Thorndike, who also appeared in the movie. I can’t recall offhand but I think Mailer quotes it. Thorndike said that when she played her scene with Marilyn she couldn’t figure out what Marilyn was doing, indeed she hardly seemed to be doing anything at all. It wasn’t until Thorndike saw the onscreen result that she understood; she said Monroe was the only one of them who knew how to act in front of the camera. Even allowing for the necessity to praise the star/producer, it’s a fine compliment. I don’t think Olivier came around to quite that extent – the making of the film was a very bad experience, although not all Monroe’s fault to be sure (as I think Mailer points out, Olivier never should have been made the director) – but he did say in his autobiography that when he saw the picture again years later it looked far better than he expected and Marilyn better than anybody else, including himself. (He didn’t add, “Go figure” but it was implied. )

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Philip Kennicott ponders the phenomenon of lousy music at ballet performances. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7022300419.html Comments?

A long piece in TheGuardian regarding looming cuts in the arts budget. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2020381,00.html

This ticks me off too. Every school play, every live performance of any genre all seem to get automatic standing ovations (ASO). It's like a currency that is completely worthless. How do you honor the truly fine performance? Pretty difficult! Couldn't agree more. We've had threads on this before in other forums, BTW, fadedhour, so if you do a search you can probably pull up some pithy comments. The Oscar ceremony generally has far too many, as well. One was especially dramatic - Elia Kazan received an honorary award, and some people stood up and some didn't. ( As I recollect, Warren Beatty stood up and clapped; Ed Harris sat on his hands; Steven Spielberg split the difference and clapped sitting down. Probably Beatty felt he owed Kazan for 'Splendor in the Grass.')

I seem to remember 1972, but little else. Atlanta Ballet once contemplated a dance version, but nixed it for reasons I hope are obvious. Tell us more about the score, papeetepatrick, please.