dirac

Henry was out for about two hours, if we are thinking of the same accident, but there is no doubt it was serious enough to keep him from ever jousting again. There is some circumstantial evidence to indicate possible brain damage, but I don't think biographers are agreed on that and not all have detected quite that drastic a change in his personality.

Oh, Michael, thank you so much.

If you observed those "perfectly matched" bodies of the POB or the Kirov off stage you'd see they are not perfectly matched by nature. They're all different women with different ways of walking and moving &c ad inf. The matching work is part of the technical artistry both of the dancers and the ballet masters. There are no cookie cutter dancers. I guess I have to disagree slightly here. When I saw the Kirov in Berkeley the last time around, one thing that struck me was the beauty in the uniformity of the corps (not in the cookie cutter sense). It was breathtaking. A corps with a diversity of dancers -- all colors and sizes present and accounted for -- has its own beauty, and it is not inferior -- but it is not the same kind of beauty.

It would have been interesting to see the two of them together in the roles she used to dance with Villella, who was also too short for her -- Prodigal Son and Bugaku. Returning to one part of Ceeszi's original question -- which of the classical roles would those of you who saw a lot of Farrell choose for her?

And even the greatest talents can fall prey to bad career moves, bad luck, bad health, etc. Balanchine was in the right place at the right time, but if you change just a few things around it could all look so different.

If Balanchine had not succeeded in finding a permanent home (although I can’t believe he wouldn’t have found something eventually, whether at the Opéra or elsewhere) he would be as highly regarded, but he might be differently regarded. That he found an unswerving backer in Kirstein, that he was able to found a stable company in the city that was rapidly becoming the media center of the world, in the country that became the dominant power in the West – some of those things did make a difference. I suspect Balanchine knew that they would, too – he didn’t want to base a company and school in Connecticut, but held out for New York. If fate hadn’t brought him here, and he’d landed in Paris instead, he’d still be a great figure if not the greatest – but again, perhaps another kind of great figure. (He would not have been building a company from the ground up in a country with no pre-existing ballet tradition, for one thing.) Note: I was posting at the same time as carbro -- didn't intend to duplicate any of the points made or ignore the post.

Helene wrote: They were. I believe they were Farrell's first high profile engagements after the rupture with Balanchine. (She said in the book there was some talk of her joining the company, and she dropped hints that she was interested, but the company didn't follow up.)

I never heard that she did Nikiya, too -- interesting. I seem to recall, though, that her knee blew out performing the Act II fouettes, and she mentions that she enjoyed performing the dual roles. (This is from memory and could be mistaken.)

Farrell discusses her time with the National Ballet of Canada in her book and “Swan Lake” comes up (she suffered a serious knee injury in it). She never danced the classic roles and apparently has no regrets about that. As Peter Martins observed in his own book, ".....Balanchine has been the reason she dances. Her goals have been to dance in Balanchine ballets." She was dancing the new classic roles, not the old ones. Ceeszi, I think I understand what you mean, but Balanchine did not dislike the classics -- far from it. He always talked of his own Sleeping Beauty, Coppelia became part of the NYCB repertory under his watch, and he did his own one-act Swan Lake (danced by Farrell, among many others). Balanchine's work was an extension of the classical tradition, not a repudiation of it.

Thank you for the report, glebb , and it's good to hear from you. This production has certainly received fine reviews (although not everyone who posts here received it with enthusiasm). There does indeed appear to have been a second (or is it the third?) British invasion. Is it a Good Thing, I wonder? (Out here on the West Coast, I have no way of knowing. )

miliosr, hello. The Polanski version was mentioned earlier, but very briefly, so it was easy to miss. I thought the central gimmick – that is, casting a young couple as the Macbeths – worked very well. As bart mentioned earlier, Jon Finch wasn’t quite up to the job, but he’s all right. Lady Macbeth’s nude sleepwalking scene is entirely unsensational. I didn’t agree with the end (Macduff heading out for a visit with the witches, implying that the whole cycle of events is repeating itself), which implicitly robs Macbeth of his uniqueness and thus dramatic interest. I really didn't find it to be all that bloody, although there were some giggles in the repertory theater where I first saw it during Macbeth's last fight, which is a bit much. canbelto, the Waterston television version was mentioned early in the thread – click around and you’ll find the comments. You can open it without fear.

Cutting and pasting Ed Waffle's post on Robert Caro's LBJ volumes from another thread: Many ambitious young men form relationships with powerful older ones -- we call it "mentoring" these days -- but Johnson's gifts in this direction were exceptional. Caro's account of Johnson's dealings with Richard Russell of the Senate is excellent, too.

Henry probably chose Jane Seymour because he was tired of dealing with intelligent, forceful women with minds of their own and needed a break. I always felt sorry for Katherine Howard -- a none-too-bright girl used as a political pawn. I have nothing but sympathy for Catherine of Aragon, but I suspect Anne Boleyn was the most remarkable of Henry's wives. Catherine Parr was indeed interesting, and too good for Thomas Seymour, IMO. Ed, good to hear from you. There is indeed a separate thread on the Caro biographies of LBJ -- a very recent one. I agree with you that the first volume is the best. It's certainly the one I enjoyed the most. "The Power Broker" is a great book, too. papeetepatrick writes: As far as political ambitions are concerned, Pompadour was in a much better position to indulge in such as Louis' maitresse-en-titre than as his queen. I enjoyed that book very much, too. I thought it might be fun to be Madame de Pompadour, if only to own all those beautiful objets!

Antonia Fraser’s biography of Mary Queen of Scots is one of my favorites. Partisan, but delightfully so, and she doesn’t stretch the facts to make her case.

Thank you for that reminder, sidwich. She played Hedda Gabler in L.A. a couple of seasons back, too. I'm afraid I don't remember much about the McKellen film version except that I didn't think the political context translated very well. Bening was pretty good as Queen Elizabeth as I recall, and she looked beautiful. I'll have to check it out again.

Thank you, atm711. The best account I've read of FDR and his illness is that given by Geoffrey C. Ward in his biography, "A First Class Temperament." I came away very moved by FDR's courage and fortitude, and that of his wife and Louis Howe, who wouldn't let him give up. When you think of how the handicapped were regarded in that era, their accomplishments are doubly impressive.

bart writes: I’m not sure if that was really the case. Olivier’s style took its place alongside Gielgud’s more poetic manner (if that’s what you’re referring to) but did not replace it, and not everyone would agree that it was truer or better, I think. canbelto writes: I'll say. But he's unbelievably callow. He wasn't a prodigy like Richard Burton, or Branagh. I agree. DiCaprio and Danes are both very talented. Paul Parish writes: Wow. I never would have put Tarantino and Cymbeline together, but it would be interesting, wouldn’t it?

Well......Laurence Olivier was already in his late twenties, had no classical experience outside the occasional school production, and no previous ambition to do Shakespeare, when John Gielgud, a few years older and already an established classical actor, offered him the chance to alternate Romeos and Mercutios. Olivier was accused of insensitivity to poetic values, mangling the verse, overathleticism, bad voice, etc., etc. I’m not making an analogy between Di Caprio and Olivier, only noting that casting a promising actor with little or no classical experience is not quite the same as casting an unqualified dancer as Albrecht (or casting a personality star like John Wayne or Tom Cruise as Romeo). Sometimes such an actor can bring something fresh to the part, like Jean Simmons in the Olivier Hamlet. On other occasions, the inadequacy is obvious. It depends on the circumstances. canbelto writes: Yes, but that doesn’t mean that actors of that age have the skills needed to play the roles. Whiting and Hussey didn’t convince me that they are experiencing anything beyond puppy love, and they’re inadequate to the passions unleashed in the later parts of the play, IMO.

Hee! I agree, some situations are pretty one-sided. When it comes to the Roosevelts, though, I don't think anyone knew for sure -- not even people within the family circle. .

canbelto writes: Clift and Jerome Robbins were an item for awhile, and there is a well known story that says it was a discussion with Clift about the role of Romeo that gave Robbins the seed idea for “West Side Story.” Clift never did play it. I agree with you, he was perfect for the part, visually and otherwise. Sigh. bart writes: Well – Di Caprio is a good actor. He needs voice lessons, but I think he could handle the role in the right circumstances. (I admit I enjoyed the Luhrmann R&J – it’s lousy Shakespeare but fun to watch, although you do wonder why the actors are talking funny.)

It is true that Vivien Leigh suffered from manic depression, but I would caution strongly about drawing broad conclusions from that. Leigh was known for her professionalism, dedicated hard work, and carefully worked out (sometimes too carefully worked out) performances, and forgive me if I find statements such as “she was playing herself” a tad condescending (and in questionable taste). It is called acting, you know. I do not doubt that her experience in periodically living close to the edge of sanity gave her insight into the plight of characters such as Blanche DuBois and Mrs. Treadwell, but that’s not the same thing. canbelto writes: All of them? Really? Paul Parish writes: Leigh could be extraordinarily good, but you couldn’t call her a great natural talent. She was limited by certain physical characteristics – she was small, with a voice that could sound light and artificial, and that Dresden doll beauty that was a huge asset but also restricted the kind of roles she could play. When Olivier made his move into the new wave of British drama in “The Entertainer,” there was talk of her playing Mrs. Archie Rice, but she could not follow him; it wasn’t right for her. Paul is right in that she wasn’t a “warm” actress, and she often played women – Scarlett, Emma Hamilton, Cleopatra – who have less than admirable qualities (and Leigh doesn’t shirk from showing us those; she’s willing to take the risk that we won’t like her). I thought that "Ship of Fools" was a travesty, to be blunt. Only Signoret and Werner came out of it alive -- all the other actors went down with the ship, as it were, through no fault of their own. While I'm not cutting off all discussion on this point, we should stick with the topic a little more clsosely. Thanks.

I’ve seen an Angus McBean photograph of Leigh in the role; she looks ravishing and fierce. Apparently she played it not as a dragon lady so much as a siren. It was clear that part of her hold on her husband was a sexual one.

Point taken, canbelto. The Roosevelts' marriage was a very complicated affair, and some commentators do oversimplify. (I still think Eleanor had a hell of a time, though. I can't imagine having Sara as a mother-in-law!) Of course, where the Founders are concerned, you could argue that a little partisanship is only a contemporary reflection of what was a highly partisan era, where newspapers, for example, made no pretense whatsover to objectivity.

I thought the Brodie biography did give a sense of Jefferson as a man, especially the letters he wrote to his daughters and also the Adamses (John and Abigail). He was a very complex person, I think. Very crafty, tough, and manipulative under that genial surface. Oh I forgot to mention Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton as an excellent political biography. But, warning: fans of Jefferson will not be pleased. I agree, Helene, about the Adams biography: I thought it bordered on hagiography. Actually, come to think of it, thats my beef with many political biographies, which is that they always set the rival as a villain (or hero). Sometimes even with marriages -- Eleanor is the villainess in many biographies of FDR, while FDR is the villain of the Eleanor biographies. Ditto RFK and LBJ. Well the dye has been set: I just ordered The Path to Power/Master of the Senate from Amazon marketplace, along with Lone Star (Dallek). I'll be busy for awhile. Anyone read Mutual Contempt (about the RFK/LBJ feud)? And this is OT but: I learned more about TJ as a man than all the biographies in the world when I visited Monticello. We were led through the tastefully designed, cozy house. Then we went downstairs, where there was a kind of tunnel that included a kitchen and winery and servant's quarters. Even in the hot of summer, the place was cold, dark, and damp. Then we went outside to the plantation area, where there were tiny cabins set up for the slaves. Obviously Jefferson was a man of his time, but I couldn't help but feel faintly disgusted with him, especially in light of the recent DNA evidence about Sally Hemings. It might be best to keep this thread for LBJ. Since books about the Founders are a recurring topic in this forum, I've started another thread related to biographies of political figures.

This topic has come up on several threads, including canbelto's recent thread related to biographies of President Johnson, so I thought I'd start a new thread. I also recall that the subject of biographies of the Founders was discussed at length on an older thread, so I pulled it up and the link is below. canbelto, I admit to a certain puzzlement about where you’re finding these essays and biographies you mention. It’s true that some popular biographies take such views, but there are a large number of responsibly written books that don’t contain the kinds of simplifications and generalizations you mention – visit the library, browse the shelves there, and you’ll see what I mean. As mentioned, the topic of books about the Founders came up in another thread and was discussed at some length here. Sample quotes from the LBJ thread: carbro: Helene: canbelto: