dirac

This thread is becoming top-heavy, and so I'm shutting it down, but please feel free to comment in the new one. Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion.

canbelto's "good movies" thread has grown to such lengths that it's now a victim of its own success, and so I've closed it and begun a new thread in the same vein. Please continue to report on what you've seen this season!

I also intended to thank drb for posting the Associated Press obituary, which is a very good overview of her career.

carbro writes: Well, I'll say it salaciously: the most awesome buns in ballet, without a doubt. (PLEASE, nobody start a thread......) In Otis Stuart's entertaining bio, he quotes a ballerina who says that one of Nureyev's favorite devices, when he was unhappy with the level of the dancing around him, was to turn his back to the audience and flex. It never failed, she added. I believe Graham made an original work on Nureyev and Fonteyn called Lucifer. I think Croce said it wasn't great Graham but it was great Nureyev.

Pamela, thank you for posting this sad news. A great singer from a great era.

Bart, several female acquaintances have described their reaction to the movie in very similar terms to me, and while it was hardly a scientific sampling of the population, my hunch is that you responded more emotionally and, um, erotically to this version because that’s how you were intended to respond – it’s those elements in the story that this production brings out. (I guess I’m going to have to break down and see the movie in order to see for myself.) This kind of re-interpretation is common in today’s theatre. (And I’m not necessarily agin it – I would be prepared, for example, to mount a defense of Patricia Rozema’s “Mansfield Park.”) The difference is that a high profile feature film reaches millions and may become the Pride & Prejudice for many people. The television versions reach a lot of people, too, but a TV series doesn’t have the same authority as a successful movie, although it looks as if Firth’s Darcy is becoming the new Darcy template. I really have no problem with an interpretation that steams up viewers’ spectacles – sexual attraction is central (in a sense, in a sense) to the story, after all. Just as long as somebody notes somewhere that Austen had other things on her mind. My impression is that the new P&P is a good movie worth seeing even if you don’t agree with it, and I probably would have checked it out long ago were it not for my reluctance, earlier expressed, to see yet another Austen adaptation...... You may be right, but in the past I’ve noted it in regard to Emma – women seem to like the novel more intensely than men.

Good point. No, there wouldn't be a way to create suspense for anyone who's familiar with the book or who's seen an earlier dramatization, but creating suspense wouldn't necessarily be the primary goal. You'd be trying to stay close to the character as conceived by Austen.

Paul, your preview makes me eager for more... Thanks to Hans (or the anonymous voter) who revived this thread.

All of my cats have been rescue cats or strays, and I wouldn’t have a purebred in the house, thanks very much. Regarding the Moscow Cat Circus, below is a link to an article that ran in the NY Times when it came to town, profiling Yuri Kuklachev and how the circus was founded. Another item, with a picture of Kuklachev and Marusa:

Miliosr, I have to disagree just a teeny bit there. Although none of Hayworth’s musicals were in the absolute top drawer, the two she did with Fred Astaire and “Cover Girl” with Gene Kelly are actually pretty good – certainly as good as Gilda. I have mixed feelings about TLFS. It’s a terrific picture, but I’m not sure that Hayworth’s image ever recovered from what Welles did to it. (The blond hair was a major boo-boo, too.) And it’s one of Grant’s oddest performances. For most of the time, he looks as if he’s hoping a trapdoor will open beneath his feet so he can disappear. (Those early scenes, where he’s still supposed to be an undergrad at Yale, are rare.) .

chrisk217, you’re not alone in those thoughts about the new P&P. I’m hors de combat because I didn’t go out of my way to see it, but I suspect I’d agree with you. There are romantic (and melodramatic) elements in Pride & Prejudice, which can be played up, but to emphasize them is to turn Austen’s story into the kind of romantic hooey at which she usually poked fun. On the other hand, I suppose filmmakers do need to try different things, even if they don't always work out -- sometimes they can even shed new light. Amen to that.

Like Giannina, I am envious of those who will see all of these debuts -- although not the production -- and I look forward to reading reports. Parenthetically, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Leonard Pinth-Garnell on his choice of moniker. I dearly loved the old Saturday Night Live “Bad Playhouse” sketches, which ran in the early years of the show. Very clever theater parodies, with Dan Aykroyd providing judicious commentary – “Supremely poor taste!” “Awesomely misguided!” “Spectacularly ill advised!” Can’t imagine them on the current SNL.

Anybody catch the premiere?

It’s wandering a little off topic, but Stewart is an interesting choice. Many of the recent Oscar hosts have had connections with the movie industry, and Stewart has less than even Johnny Carson, I think. However, Carson hosted successfully for several years and Stewart, if he can get in a comfortable groove, could be a fine host also. The Oscars have actually gotten quite stodgy, compared to the flamboyant outbursts of bad taste one used to see and enjoy. Now it’s more mature, understated bad taste and not nearly as fun. Canbelto, did you see Brokeback the other night? Let us know what you thought. Anthony_NYC, you’re quite right, but then Hollywood tends to sit up straight and prepare to eat its spinach when awards time rolls around. It is interesting, though, that a number of award-laden pictures from decades past have not stood the test of time as well as movies intended as comedy, adventure, or light entertainment. The original King Kong, for example, retains much of its original cinematic and emotional power. The Best Picture of that year, a film version of Noel Coward’s patriotic play Cavalcade, is not awful, but it's hopelessly stiff and stagebound, with a bunch of imported actors being so British it hurts.......

Thank you for the kind words, bart. I have a copy of Tanaquil Le Clercq’s children’s book about Mourka, with Martha Swope’s photographs, and of course I’ve seen the famous photos of Balanchine with his kitty. Although I confess the latter always reminded me of an incident in a Monty Python sketch. Briefly, Graham Chapman appears as a guest on a television show. He explains that his cat can fly across the room into a bucket. The host asks how she accomplishes this feat and Chapman says matter of factly, “I fling her.” He then takes his cat by the tail, twirling her over his head like a lasso, and boom, off she goes. But I digress. Edwin Denby also pays tribute to the balletic quality of cats.

No, this will not be a regular feature, and I really shouldn’t be posting this at all, but The New York Times has an instructive feline-related article today for your reading pleasure. Salient paragraphs: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/science/06cats.html?hp Italics mine. I feel certain that Nicholas Wade is a snarky dog person who should not have been assigned this piece. Also, he should meet my friend’s cat Ginger, who naps on your shoulder like a baby. I fear it is only a matter of time before big cats and other animals that needs lots of space are confined to parks and zoos. Very sad.

Louis Menand discusses the meaning of prize days in general for The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/051226crbo_books

No disclaimers necessary, Drew. I'm always happy to read your board comments on ballet or anything else that piques your interest. This has been a great thread -- as a west coaster I don't see the performances under discussion and I'm grateful for these reports.

Crash gave opportunities to many good performers, but I’m afraid I could find little else to say for it, and I was hoping to like it. It’s nice to see the actors recognized for their good work, although I’m sorry Thandie Newton was not among them. Capote is my personal nomination for most overrated picture of the year. I do not mean to say that it was bad – it was very good – just not that good.

Stage Door. Paul is absolutely right, it’s a wonderful ensemble piece, with tough-but-vulnerable-loser Ginger Rogers facing off against La Hepburn and more than holding her own. Constance Collier is the landlady and she’s terrific, and Andrea Leeds is the suicide. (I think between us we pretty much gave away the movie, Paul.) Menjou had a recurrent itch for Kate BTW-- he seduced her in "Morning Glory" a few years earlier. “Down to Earth” is sad, but then most of the Hayworth vehicles after she returned to pictures post-Aly Khan were sad. “Seven Brides” is fabulous. You see real dancers doing real dancing, and lots of it, and don’t forget Julie Newmar (billed as Julie Newmeyer) in addition to the boys. Tommy Rall is a personal fave of mine but all those leaping lads are to die for. Maybe the score isn’t the greatest, but you can’t have everything. I also like Howard Keel in it, but then I always like Howard Keel, and Jane Powell is a seriously underrated performer IMO. She wasn’t a dancer but she kept up beautifully with Astaire in Royal Wedding, without appearing to “keep up.” “Night and Day” has to be seen to be believed........ Paul, this one’s not out on DVD yet as far as I know – but I think you would be interested in It’s Always Fair Weather, which stars Gene Kelly, Dan Dailey, and Michael Kidd as three old friends who discover they can’t abide one another. It’s not great, and it’s sort of a downer, but it has a great cast and fine dancing. Dan Dailey, in particular, is wonderful. The ladies are Dolores Gray and Cyd Charisse.

Yes, Lovebird, please keep us posted! I hope all goes well for your friend.

Thanks for the heads up, miliosr. I’m sorry to hear it. Below is the link to the NYT obituary, which has the Gottlieb quote. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/31/arts/31j...html?oref=login

And I don't think we've seen an ending like that from Spielberg before.

Thank you for the link, Dr. Coppelius. I enjoyed seeing that again.

I noted that also, and I thought it might be the language issue. Or perhaps she just wasn’t up to carrying a project of this size. canbelto, I saw “Munich” and your friend's opinion was a bit off, I'd say. You should definitely see it for yourself, IMO.