dirac

I did read Ahnlund's comments, and I regret to say that "principled and humane" doesn't quite characterize them, alas. There are plenty of reasons to argue about the choice of Jelinek, or Pinter for that matter, but I don't think he contributed much to the debate. I love the Mary Queen of Scots bio.

I've seen it and it does bother me. The Fall and Decline of the Definite Article, I guess. Balanchine's The Four Temperaments is alsofrequently rendered as Four Temperaments and I always want to cuff the writer while yelling, "There are only four temperaments!" As far as I'm concerned, "Dream" is a lovely song by Johnny Mercer that I hope will make a nice pas de deux someday, but it is not a ballet by Frederick Ashton. Grr.

Yup, and John Osborne once had The Entertainer, Look Back in Anger, and Epitaph for George Dillon on Broadway simultaneously. Those were the days. It is interesting the way many playwrights have a few great years, usually early on, and then peter out.

Giannina, I'm still quite fond of "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" although I think Melvyn Douglas stole the movie from Grant and Myrna Loy! Mel Johnson writes: That's very true. Grant complements a woman, he doesn't try to take over the screen even when he could. Pauline Kael wrote a fine essay, "The Man From Dream City," about Grant, and she has some perceptive things to say about him in this regard.

Thanks for starting the topic, vagansmom. Among other things, I'm currently re-reading Clarence Day's stories about his parents, which I hadn't looked at since I was a kid. They hold up remarkably well -- wonderful stories of a vanished era.

I'm inclined to agree with redbookish. There are others who might have been honored first, but then in most years there usually are. Congrats.

Yes. These two titles are generally regarded, correctly IMO, as the best of the Astaire-Rogers movies. Top Hat is the most famous of them all and Astaire’s own favorite. For many years it was the undisputed champ, but more recent conventional wisdom has Swing Time as Number One – Arlene Croce, for one, called it so in her book on Astaire and Rogers. I still prefer Top Hat. The dance numbers, taken in all, are not as distinguished as the very best of Swing Time, but they are excellent. Top Hat also has the archetypal Astaire number in “Top Hat, White Tie, and Tails.” canbelto, it’s true that Astaire and Rogers, as singers, can take some getting used to (or, as George Gershwin once observed, “the amount of singing one can tolerate from these two is limited” (quoted from memory, please note). However, Irving Berlin said he would rather have Astaire introduce his songs than any other performer, and among the musical stars only Ethel Merman had more great songs written for him/her. Astaire's musicianship is always a pleasure, and composers loved the fact that he sangs the songs as they were written with no funny business. Yes, the plots are awful, but they’re not so bad if you don’t mind the conventions of the French farces that many of them employ. I don’t mind the implausibilities of The Gay Divorcee and Top Hat, for example, both of which work on their own terms, but I do mind the flatfooted storyline of Swing Time, which is just – well, it’s just retarded. I’d also suggest that the Bojangles number isn’t ‘pasted in senselessly,’ although it doesn’t emerge from the plotline as we’ve been trained to expect. Astaire is a performer at the club and that’s supposed to be sufficient justification for showing us the number. (Also, it’s an awesome routine, arguably Astaire’s best ever, and overpowers all objections, save for the blackface. Yes, I know, Croce said it was a “homage.” I don’t care. Yuck.)

I’m afraid I thought Grant’s performance in “Arsenic and Old Lace” was one of his very few out-and-out bad ones and that he summed up his own efforts quite well. But then I don’t much care for the material, either, which may have something to do with it. As a light comedian I wouldn’t call Grant the equal of William Powell or Rex Harrison, but he was awfully good and as a star he was unique. All great stars are unique, of course, but Grant carved out his own special niche. I’d suggest that his range was actually pretty limited – the comedies, romances, and the thrillers he did all have elements in common, and he was not in any sense a character actor (not that that’s always bad, Gielgud wasn’t, either). He was not at home in most period dress, and I think he was wise to turn down the role of Professor Higgins in “My Fair Lady” -- I don’t think he would have been up to Harrison, or Leslie Howard for that matter. But who cares, none of it matters, he’s just – well, perfect, as canbelto observes, following Audrey Hepburn’s similar comments in “Charade.” As for the lack of an Oscar in his resume, until he received a special award after retirement, there are a number of reasons for that. The Academy doesn’t give out many acting awards for comedy as a rule, and Grant himself had an equivocal relationship with the Hollywood powers that be. He was a freelancer, operating without a long term contract with one studio in an era where that was virtually unheard of. (Ronald Colman was another such.) He was also hugely successful at it, which engendered resentment. Because he was not allied to a particular studio, he had to resign from the Academy and so was not a member of the club, as it were. In addition, Grant could be highly contentious and litigious and he was forever disputing with one studio head or another, which didn’t add to his popularity. I think he was to be admired for all of the above, but you pay a price for swimming against the stream and he did. No Oscar for you, Cary. My favorite Grants: Bringing Up Baby and The Awful Truth. And I thought he was excellent in the sentimental Penny Serenade -- a moving performance.

Harold Pinter wins the Nobel Prize for Literature. Article in the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/...1591458,00.html

Very well put, Drew, thank you. We need both the “snobs” and the “cheerleaders” -- not that I endorse either of those terms – or there’s no discussion. I wasn’t around then, but it’s clear from the reviews of the time that what oberon says is absolutely true. The difference, I suppose, is that back then Balanchine (and Robbins) were around and now they’re not. As long as the originators were keeping an eye on things, people might shake their heads and mutter, What is he thinking? from time to time but there was a basic confidence in the Men in Charge. It’s a different situation when they’re gone and people fret more. From the vantage point of an outsider who follows the debate from afar, I’m inclined to side cautiously with the defenders, but people who disapprove can’t be told to put up or shut up; they need to be heard – and listened to. I add my thanks to bart's, lampwick. By all means, contribute your two cents!

From the news reports, it certainly doesn't sound like an amicable parting.

I should have noted that I didn't mean to imply endorsement of Baryshnikov's view.

One of the threads running through the interviews with many retired dancers is: They’re-not-doing-it-the-way-we-did-it and Everyone-looks-alike-now-we-had individuality. I don’t say that they’re wrong, of course. (And I’m sure that body types, for example, may well be more uniform because of changes in nutrition, training, the talent pool, etc.) If I recall correctly, the quote from Taras is related to other comments he was making about the special qualities of Marie-Jeanne, and how Ballet Imperial and Concerto Barocco are, in addition to many other things, essays about the unique gifts of one particular dancer, and when Marie-Jeanne left those roles they weren’t quite the same. He wasn’t saying, don’t ever do the ballet again because she’s not here, or that no one else could perform the ballets well – only that they were different with her. (He did say that he felt that if you never saw Ballet Imperial, I think it was, with Marie-Jeanne, you’d never really seen it, but he's hardly the first longtime observer to make remarks in that vein about M-J or other dancers who created roles.) I do remember reading that the shots of Kent coaching Kistler in “Dancing for Mr. B” were staged for the film, but I’m not sure how accurate that is? Regarding Kent, I seem to recall reading in Kirkland's first autobiography that she had wanted to be coached by Kent for Sonnambula, but Baryshnikov demurred, saying "She's too kooky" or words to that effect......

I think the matter of titles is worth discussing, but as far as I can tell it wasn’t the central issue. It does seem as if Farrell was pushing for some kind of power sharing arrangement, and Martins demurred, as indeed many ADs would. If that or something similar was the case, I agree with bart that Martins would have had a point, and it wouldn’t necessarily be egomania to decide such an arrangement wouldn’t work. (I certainly wouldn’t want to be Ballet- Master- in- Chief- for-Taking- the- Blame- myself. ) That said, it is to be hoped that Martins did everything he could to avoid such a disastrous breach. Perhaps a more politic approach, from someone less inclined to defensiveness as Martins seems to be, might have worked.

A new novel by Katherine Bucknell, Leninsky Prospect, is set in the Soviet Union during the New York City Ballet’s first tour. This review in the Telegraph is not especially favorable, but the book may be worth looking into. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml.../02/bomain.html

I would agree that it’s a Good Thing, always provided, of course, that the oldsters aren’t being pushed aside for “new voices,” etc.

Apparently Millo was indeed planning some Rodgers and Hammerstein for the encores. True – up to a point. Some – by no means all- of Rodgers and Hammerstein can be sung by opera stars with acceptable results, but I wouldn’t want to hear them in most of Rodgers and Hart (Rodgers’ style was much more jazzy when he composed with Hart) or Guys and Dolls. Italian pop never cut its ties to opera as completely as other kinds of pop did – hence Andrea Bocelli (and I don’t mean to sneer at Bocelli). I’m not Lloyd Webber’s biggest fan by any means but on its own terms “The Phantom of the Opera” is a significant work. (Don’t throw stones, but I could make a case for it against, say, “Sweeney Todd.”) Opera News gave Fleming’s most recent attempt at crossover, “Haunted Heart,” a good review. I plan to check it out and if I do will report back in this space.

Jacobs has some interesting comments on the placement of Bolshoi dancers: I would be interested to hear any comments from those who saw the Bolshoi on its recent tour. Would you say the above is generally correct? (Please feel free to supply details from performance.)

Thanks, this was posted on the Links yesterday as well. It's a good article.

I see your point, but. I don't think it makes those performers willing to bare themselves under the appropriate circumstances "immodest" or exhibitionistic. My point, to clarify, was not that actors should feel obligated to strip, but that the scenes should be shot more plausibly if they're not willing to do that. ( In the case of SATC or any HBO series, that might present a problem, of course, since the unspoken promise of HBO series, even the quality ones with the Complex Narrative Structure and the Fine Writing, is "More sex! More violence! More nudity than the networks can show! That's the HBO guarantee!'' But I digress. ) As a Board Moderator, I rebuke myself for wandering so far afield.

I have a slightly different take when it comes to nudity in media that don’t involve performers live. Although we do see far too much of it, especially where women are concerned (I turned off HBO’s “Rome” after two episodes, and the absurdly gratuitous nudity was one of the reasons), I think candor is preferable to some of the evasions we used to see and occasionally still do (e.g., an actress in bed with a sheet wrapped tightly around her torso, as if modesty forbade exposure in front of the husband/lover with whom she’s just spent a torrid night in bed, etc.). There are still some examples of prudery about. Returning to HBO, since I’ve pulled the network in from left field, there were some very odd scenes in the old series “Sex and the City.” Because several of the actresses had objections to going topless, although not apparently to fairly graphic simulations of various sex acts, there were lots of scenes that involved heavy breathing activity in bed – with bras firmly in place no matter what. A friend of mine commented, “I guess men in New York don’t like breasts.” I thought more than once it would have been better simply to restage the scene, because it did look rather silly.

That may well be. I understand these wedding announcements are vetted pretty closely. Some time ago at my place of employment, one gentleman whose wedding was announced in NYT's pages provided some information that caused much merriment among his co-workers. I think carbro's observation about things being a little freer in the society pages is also on the mark. dido writes: Not on this thread, please. (Although I could never see what was wrong with plain old "lover" myself. I guess it's too sexy.)

Thanks for the report, harpergroup. From what I've seen of Wheeldon's Ligeti items, I'm inclined to think you're right. And I think you do just fine as a critic.

I'm inclined to agree, violet, but even when sex is the text or subtext, the stray breast hanging out can be a major distraction from the choreography.

canbelto writes: A phenomenon that is still with us today. Totally off topic, but I'll never forget my first hearing of Ponselle. What a revelation.