dirac

It did seem like an HBO Special Presentation at times. It's not bad by any means, but I admit to some confusion on reading some of the extraordinarily laudatory reviews. Would be interested to hear other views. papeetepatrick writes: I hope to see it when it makes its way out here.

I won't cry if Emmitt wins. He's really working at his partnering, and I actually enjoy watching him.

Yes, of course, because the integrated musical didn't occur until 'Showboat' and, especially, 'Oklahoma.' There'd always been some story in operetta, but American musicals of the most admired kind were pre-dated by hundreds of 'numbers musicals' and 'show biz musicals', and this is not the diagetic. I actually like the numbers musicals quite as well at this stage of life, they seem more authentically American much of the time. Then there are mixtures of the diagetic and non-diagetic, this can be effective too. Another good adaptation that came to mind is 'Damn Yankees,' also apropos of discussion of Fosse. I find the film to still be extremely enjoyable, and it's interesting to see Verdon and Fosse dancing in it: She's got just a touch more energy than he does, and her dancing is perfect in this. I haven't seen 'Damn Yankees' for years but I have fond memories of 'Who's Got the Pain?' Tab Hunter was a very convincing Yankee, like Roger Maris only cheerier and more photogenic.

Thank you for the heads up, better late than never! Looking forward to the Idomeneo if I can catch it.

I, too. I noticed he’d been looking a little thin lately but never thought of anything like this. Always enjoyed watching him.

You know, Woodward's books are always so widely discussed that I rarely get around to actually reading them - I feel as if I already have. Welcome to the thread, YouOverThere, and thank you for posting. I'm sure you have nothing to be penitent for. canbelto, I read an excerpt from Mann's book in Vanity Fair not too long ago. I'm sure some of what he says is on target, but his sources seemed doubtful. I assume that in the book he comes up with more solid research than warmed over hearsay emanating from George Cukor's sewing circle. Thanks, everyone. Continue to keep us informed.

Thanks for the thoughts on Jarman, about whom I know less; and also for mentioning 'Jubilee', which I was able to put a hold on just now, and will report back when I see it. I probably need to watch 'The Last of England' again, and for those going to see 'The Queen', there are some interesting 'home movies' of the Windsors in that film. I remember the Thatcher-type asking some returned soldiers 'Did you enjoy the Falklands?' but it's been 15 years since I saw it. If I want to see home movies of the Windsors, I can always go to my local PBS stations, which are preoccupied with the subject. ('The Queen' actually was a sort of glorified PBS or cable movie, now that I think about it.) I haven't seen 'The Last of England' but I'll look for it.

I wouldn't call Jarman a 'victim artist,' but I know others have. I think they're missing the point, though. He's open, he's personal, he's deliberately 'messy,' but he's not a victim artist in the sense that Arlene Croce seemed to be using the term. (I haven't read the journals yet.) 'Jubilee' is a fabulous movie, must see it again.....

Tell us more.......

Agreed - up to a point. I think there's a very strong implication in the book that May knows exactly what she's doing when she tells Newland about her pregnancy. She understands what he might do and she's not going to let it happen. And that is as far as she can go by the dictates of her society. Had that not worked, it would have been over for her.Now I have to go see "The Queen" Helene writes: Perhaps - who knows what her next move might have been had the less than 'innocent' gambit failed? I had actually forgotten which thread I was posting to - I got confused and thought I was on the 'movies of the season' thread. As Emily Litella would say, 'never mind.'

Agreed - up to a point. I think there's a very strong implication in the book that May knows exactly what she's doing when she tells Newland about her pregnancy. She understands what he might do and she's not going to let it happen. (I think this also came up in another old thread - perhaps even the one Estelle linked to!) Just noting, BTW, that this thread is for other films of the season, not just 'The Queen,' although I'm not trying to stop all conversation in that direction. Keep reports coming!

Not all of the magazine is available online to nonsubscribers, unfortunately, only selected articles, including this one. bart writes: I also took it as a reference to the Duchess of Windsor at first glance, before reading it closely. A quote from the review: I’m not sure what other ‘prophecies’ Andrew O’Hagan, the reviewer, is referring to, but this remark certainly isn’t much of one. If the Queen hadn’t figured out after all this time that prime ministers are sometimes booted out unceremoniously, she’d be a dim bulb indeed. (And I didn’t think it really applied to Blair, who’s been clinging to office in barnacle like fashion.)

Thank you for that, Estelle. I see I said more or less the same thing back then, only more churlishly.

sidwich writes: Very true, and the show actually performs a useful function on those rare occasions when you do learn something about ballroom dancing. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to increase my knowledge, which is not extensive, to understate the matter considerably. Dancing for the Stars doesn't help much, thought, except to make this untutored eye appreciate the skills of the competitors that show up on PBS.

I forgot Davies had directed ‘The House of Mirth.’ I thought it was an honorable try, but I’m afraid I didn’t think Gillian Anderson was right for Lily. It wasn’t anything she did or didn’t do, it’s a matter of casting. Lily isn’t just beautiful, she’s a goddess – you have to believe that she’s a truly superior being, and that others would resent her for it and ultimately try to destroy her for it, although she colludes in her own destruction. (Something akin to the effect Ava Gardner has in “The Barefoot Contessa.”) I just couldn’t see Gillian Anderson arousing those kinds of emotions. I had the same reaction to Eric Stoltz, but it could have been bias as I’m not a fan. I think Selden has to be a match for Lily – although Selden is weak.

Good point. (As an aside, I don't think "Cabaret" is the first movie musical with non-bursting-into-songness. All of the musical staging in the Warner Bros. /Busby Berkeley musicals occurs "onstage" as well.) I didn't say it was the first, actually. I do think it was a reflection of a change in taste.

I think she's supposed to experience an epiphany of sorts when she sees the stag for the last time. It didn't quite work for me, but I saw the point. Thank you for posting that review, papeetepatrick, although I can't say I agreed with much of it. But then the reviews I've seen have all been raves to one degree or another, so perhaps it is just me.

Whether Fosse was conscious of it or not, I think in addition to anything else he had in mind he was making an adjustment to contemporary taste, and I don’t think he was wrong to do so. Today’s movie audiences seem to have a higher resistance to the naturalistic convention of actors bursting into song and dance. Also, it makes a better kind of dramatic sense in the context of his conception – the songs are a commentary on and a contrast to what’s happening outside the cabaret, with the great exception of ‘Tomorrow Belongs to Me.’ It’s really a great movie, isn’t it? Look on my works, ye Rob Marshall, and despair!

The original Sally, Isherwood’s, has no talent and no chance of really getting anywhere in show business and knows it. With Minnelli in the role Sally became a determined-to-make-it-no-matter-what-the-cost starlet, which was the only way she could plausibly play it. It didn’t bother me - much -till the very end, when she becomes Judy at Carnegie Hall going full blast. More ravishing than she is on the screen? A scary thought. I can’t really see Richardson, a regal glowing beauty like her mom, in a dive either but she’s a good enough actress to pull it off, I’m sure. Thanks to you and FauxPas for the detailed Sally reports. As for Johnny D., my fingers are crossed.

William Styron has died, age 81. His style was a little florid for me but I liked ‘The Confessions of Nat Turner.’

A belated note that I got the title of the song 'You Are Sixteen' wrong in my post above. Deeply embarrassed.

Jennings' was my favorite performance. I particularly admired the scene in which his secretary is on the phone with Blair, passing on Charles’ conviction that Charles and Blair are both ‘modern men.’ Charles doesn’t say a word, but the fretful/fearful expression on his face speaks volumes about what’s going on inside him. (The mother-son relationship is very “Ordinary People”; when Mirren deals with Jennings, she’s like Mary Tyler Moore refusing to give Timothy Hutton a hug.) I came away with mixed feelings also. Mirren is fine, which you might expect, she’s on a roll these days, and the supporting cast was exemplary. It’s puzzling. The movie is quite obvious on some levels – the stag = Diana symbolism, for example – but finally it wasn’t clear to me what the point of it all was. As far as I can tell, the picture is telling us that even though there may be some unnecessary fuss and expense about the monarchy, it’s all right to like it and the Queen (a member of the Greatest Generation, as the film is at some pains to point out), and republicans are probably a disagreeable lot anyway, especially as represented by an opinionated career woman who can hardly be bothered to curtsy to the Queen and nags at her husband to clean up after himself. (Tony Blair, in this telling, is a Thurber husband, caught between two withholding female authority figures.) The view of the royal family in general is a bit of this and a bit of that. A moderately satirical tone is taken toward individuals, especially Philip and the offstage Margaret, who is never named. I assume this was done in order to keep the film from being an extended exercise in forelock-tugging, but I didn’t see why the Queen and Charles are seemingly eligible for audience sympathy and Philip and the late Princess Margaret aren’t. Both of them came in for their share of criticism over the years but defenses can be made for them as well as anyone else in the family. When Blair starts carrying on about what a fine woman the Queen is and all she’s been through, I couldn’t help reflecting that at least Elizabeth got to marry the man of her choice, which was more than poor Margaret could say. Minor point: Would the Queen really find herself marooned on her estate alone in a malfunctioning vehicle without some sort of security detail around? The director, Stephen Frears, does a good job of keeping things moving, not necessarily easy to do when much of the action consists of the actors watching television and reading the papers. Slight tedium did set in for me, however. Genuine footage of Diana, et al., is cleverly mixed with material shot for the movie.

Thank you for this review, atm711, and your view of the original cast. And yes, wonderful dancers with not much to dance, it's the story of our time....

Yes, ‘nucular’ has been around for quite some time – anyone who catches ‘The China Syndrome’ will note that Michael Douglas says it that way, and I’m sure it was in circulation well before that. It’s entirely possible that if enough people keep saying it and it becomes widespread among the educated, the usage may very well become standard eventually – such things have happened before. This doesn’t count as an eggcorn, but over time an interesting thing happened to the phrase ‘eat your cake and have it too.’ It’s now nearly always rendered as ‘have your cake and eat it too’ in spite of the fact that the latter doesn’t really make sense.

I agree, but I hesitate to say ‘forget about it’ – it probably isn’t the ‘Giselle’ to begin with, but when the camerawork permits, you can see Bruhn and Toni Lander doing some beautiful stuff.