dirac

I wish he had made that point. After all, taking his argument further, you could argue that the majority might be able to demand the occasional review of Spider Man 2 or National Treasure, or whatever is currently occupying the most theatres at the local multiplex. (Of course, if Kauffmann were writing for a daily, or a magazine appealing to a broader audience, he would have to.)

Well, Kisselgoff is hardly Jayson Blair.

I agree, ostrich, sometimes you can judge a book by its cover! I tend to avoid books with very glitzy covers, or those paperback books aimed at women that are decorated with cutesy-wootsy fonts and pastel colors. Sometimes you get ones that are completely out of left field, though. I have a first edition of Edmund White’s Forgetting Elena and it has this very odd cover, a shell with a tear dropping from it, as I recall. Very odd and irrelevant. However, on that occasion I ignored the bad cover vibe, and I was glad I did. I've also been turned off by author photographs, especially guys with beards, posing against a forest background, often with dog.

dido, it's not off topic at all, and I think the word "duty" is perfectly appropriate (although in this case I'm sure that Kauffmann also regards telling the world about small films as a privilege, too) -- in fact, more suitable than the "rights" idea, since it's not so much about the rights of readers to be informed as the obligation of publications that pride themselves on their cultural coverage to inform.

That's a lovely definition, Drew.

It’s true that you can start with any book of Croce’s and profit from it, but Afterimages is, as Paul says, the ideal place to start. It’s also special in that it includes pieces that were written before Croce got the regular gig at The New Yorker, and so many of them are different in form and tone from her later pieces. (I would compare it to Pauline Kael’s first book, “I Lost It At the Movies” although Croce’s title is more elegant.) I like the title, too – it’s especially appropriate for Croce. She is a writer of many gifts, but paramount among these are her powers of description – nobody evokes those “afterimages” better, not even Denby, IMO. I was a little disappointed with "Writing in the Dark," because it's not a comprehensive collection of her later work -- I missed a review of Farrell's autobiography, and although it wasn't dance related she wrote a very interesting review of the most recent biography of the silent film star Mary Pickford.

Stanley Kauffmann, in The New Republic, responds to a reader who wanted to know why he reviews so many obscure films. He says: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi%3D2005020...kauffmann020705 I think the concept of “minority rights” in arts coverage is a good one, and I wish more publications would take this view. (I also wish The New Republic would observe these rights in the area of dance coverage. Sigh.)

Edward Rothstein considers Ayn Rand on the occasion of her centenary, in The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/books/02rand.html I have always been interested in Ayn Rand. No Objectivist I, but I’ve read the memoirs of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, and the essays, and the novels. And all this in spite of the fact that I never thought she was a good writer and disagreed with much of what she had to say. I admire her determination, her independence, and her kiss-the-ground-at-Ellis-Island love for the USA. I do like her first book, “We the Living” for its own sake. It is based on her life in Russia and was written before her views had calcified, and its characters seem like real people – not the abstractions of the later books.

Elegantly put, cargill. I think it was wise not to read the other letters -- after all, you don't want to open yourself to suggestions of "mutual consultation."

Here is a nice explanation of the term, courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation I should note, just in case, that I was NOT implying that Rockwell has race on the brain. It just seemed an odd choice of words.

Rockwell remarked, in preface to his comments about cross-fertilization between ballet and modern dance, that “I think Hitler was wrong.” As Farrell Fan notes, this was a cheap shot and nothing more; I think we can safely leave it at that -- although I could not help noting that Rockwell used the term “miscegenation” at least three times in the broadcast, by my count. He seems bemused, as if he can’t understand what all the fuss is about. (“Here’s where I got into trouble with this crowd,” “They were mightily offended when I called it a chat room,” “They hate the notion of crossover dance,” etc.) We are a prickly lot, it seems. He did mention that Alexandra had recently disassociated herself with the site, and his tone seemed to imply that this was some kind of mysterious development........ It is regrettable that neither Leigh nor Alexandra was there. Rockwell's discomfort at again having to relay their views was commendable, although IMO it would have been even more commendable for someone to have ensured that one or both of them could participate. He also spoke about coming to the dance beat after having spent many years as an arts coverage generalist. He had some interesting things to say, and I recommend listening to the broadcast if you have the time. It's true that the disco segment comes first, but I enjoyed it, myself.

If memory serves, Kirkland and Nureyev once danced a fabulous Corsaire pas de deux together. It's too bad Farrell was too tall for Baryshnikov when he joined NYCB -- I don't know that it would have been a dream partnership, but it would have been fascinating to watch, I'm sure.

The NYT's response also points up one of the disadvantages of the Internet: publications use discussion groups and the number of clicks on articles as gauges of the interest in a given topic. In the best of all possible worlds, those considerations would not be paramount (and, to give the Times credit, it's one of the few papers where the market is not all-powerful). So remember: click on those links! The papers are counting. And subscribe to paper editions. They're looking at that, too.

I’m afraid I did not much care for Vera Drake, but I am not a fan of Mike Leigh’s work in general and so it may be that. However, if it shows up in your area I would definitely see it. Now that the nominations are out, there’s a likelihood that it will be shown in more theatres. "The Sea Inside" was playing in my area, but only for two weeks, and I missed it. The real mystery movie for me is “Being Julia.” It will sometimes happen in Oscarland that a supporting performance is nominated in a leading category, and vice versa. Jamie Foxx, for example, had a co-starring role in “Collateral,” not a secondary one, and yet there he is. Usually this has to do with studio politicking – a performer who has no chance at Best Actor might win as a Best Supporting, depending upon the circumstances.

I'm following paolo's guidelines in the following list: Moira Shearer. Gorgeous onstage, gorgeous off – the director Michael Powell, who saw a few beautiful women in his life, has recorded in his memoirs her effect in person -- and in front of the camera. She covers all the bases. Nina Fedorova – I’ve only seen her in photographs, but her face and figure just leap out at you, even in pictures where she’s tucked away in the corps. Wow. Tamara Toumanova Pearl Argyle Tamara Karsavina Julie Kent I don’t think she’s been mentioned earlier, so excuse me if she has, but I nominate Diana Adams. Not a glamour girl in the Toumanova mode, but a beautiful figure and lovely features. I wouldn’t call Fonteyn or Le Clercq beauties in the traditional sense. Magnetic and attractive, yes, but not great beauties.

carbro, your post made me think first of Fonteyn and Nureyev -- maybe the supreme example of the contrasting-styles type of partnership.

I often visualize dancing (skating, too) while listening to music, but as a rule my imagination tends to run away with itself and I start seeing things that would be difficult to do in reality, to put it mildly. I’ve generally found that when I think to myself, “This would be really good for dancing,” I find out eventually that somebody somewhere has already thought of it.

I remember Farrell saying in her book that she was surprised at how orthodox Bejart’s daily class was. However, she and her then husband, Paul Mejia, also kept their technique in trim by giving each other daily Balanchine barres.

I suspect that political issues of various kinds may be involved in the apparent snub to Giamatti. However, Jeff Bridges (for The Door in the Floor, not a good movie but he was excellent), Jim Carrey, and Gael Garcia Bernal are in the same boat, so he’s in good company this year.

Coming late to the party on this one. I echo Quiggin’s praise for the SF PALM lecture series – I saw Arthur Mitchell, Suzanne Farrell, Francia Russell, Gloria Govrin – and hockeyfan228’s praise for Elizabeth Miner in Mark Morris’ “Sylvia” for the San Francisco Ballet (although I didn’t like the ballet itself as much as others did. Too bad they’re not bringing it back this season, I would like another look.....).

silvy, I neglected to add to an earlier post that if you do go (or maybe you already did) we would love to hear back on the production!

Unfortunately, "Kill Bill" isn't what I would call an "Academy-friendly" picture. Lucy Liu was very good in the first installment, too.

The New Yorker made available online this week a profile of the late Johnny Carson by the late Kenneth Tynan. The piece is almost thirty years old, but it is a nice memento of two elegant performers in their chosen fields who are no longer with us, and may be informative for younger people who may have glanced at some of the obituaries and wondered what all the fuss was about: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?050124fr_archive03

Very sad news. I never saw her perform, unfortunately. I did see her in "Dying to be Thin" and admired her for her candor and courage in speaking out.

Old Fashioned, I thought Ardant was terrific in Callas Forever, too. Unfortunately, that’s just the kind of performance that will be under the Oscar radar: foreign actress, low profile foreign film that wasn’t that great, caused no buzz, made no money. It's too bad.