dirac

The link I provided wasn’t working, last time I checked. Here’s another: http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/oscars/news/apo...0669670000.html There are always worthy performers and movies that don’t get nominated, but this year the omissions are particularly glaring, I think. I liked “Ray” and I liked Foxx in it, but I won’t say Hewuzrobbed if he doesn’t get it. Old Fashioned, you are right -- I admit that I'm getting turned off by the tub thumping and the fact that Foxx is acting like a jerk. Sure, he was fine, but no better than others in that category (alas, many of them weren't nominated). Best Supporting Actress: Where is Regina King (for “Ray”)? Where is Meryl? Either one of them could eat Natalie Portman for breakfast. Sheesh. I'm prepared to defend DiCaprio. His performance in "The Aviator" didn't work, but it was because of his ineradicable boyishness, not a lack of acting chops. (Voice lessons might be in order, Leo.) Delighted for Kate Winslet. I'm rooting for her, which means she'll probably lose. Eastwood did not deserve a Best Actor nomination, but it helps to remember that the Oscars are also a kind of popularity contest, or election, and that may play a role here, no pun intended.

This just reminded me of a passage in Makarova’s autobiography, where she comments on what a pleasure it was to dance with Bruhn, and how she regretted that the disparity in their ages and injury made a continuing partnership impossible. “I am sure a long and harmonious partnership would have developed,” she said (as I recall).

Very nice post, Paul.

Here they are: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/apmov...inations%20List

Further Adventures in Crossover: Elvis Costello will compose an opera about Hans Christian Andersen for Copenhagen’s new opera house. Brief article in Playbill: http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/1209.html

I think Mel sums it up perfectly. I give Rockwell two cheers for acknowledging Leigh and Alexandra (and the site) and taking the time to respond, which, as kfw notes, he didn’t have to do and many in his place would not have done. I don’t much care for the way his paraphrases misrepresent their arguments – here come those straw men again – and I’m disturbed by what seems to be a penchant for oversimplification of very complex issues. It’s not so much that he disagrees; it’s his apparent lack of understanding of what’s at stake. Now I must scurry back to my fetid hut.......

The one she did at Campbell’s seemed more Deanish, particularly the final pose, which was changed at Marshall’s. The spins are now very different, too. I imagine Kwan and her coach are noodling with the program to make it more competitive internationally, but it may be that all the changes are throwing her off. If she is in top form for Worlds, that may make a big difference. carbro, although Dick may have intended "climax" in the usual sense, it sounded rather different in that context......

I agree that Bolero presents problems for a solo skater, but I also suspect that Dean was having an off day when he made this one......

I try to avoid, not always successfully, the “_____- wuzrobbed” stance, but what happened to Savoie in the short program was painful. He was beautiful to watch. I would have liked to see Beatrisa Liang a notch above Jennifer Kirk, too...... That skycam has gotta go. I shouldn’t get motion sickness just from watching TV, and I keep thinking it’s going to fall and hit some poor skater on the head. I also wondered a bit when Dick said, apropos of Jennifer Kirk and Hitchcock blondes, “Grace Kelly, watch your step!” I suppose it could have been worse. He might have said, “Grace Kelly, keep your eyes on the road!” or "Princess Grace, watch out for that one!" something like that.....

Those of who you watched the U.S. national figure skating championship this weeked may have taken note of Dick Button’s comments (“sensual...sexual [and then something about a climax]) regarding Ravel’s Bolero. Did this cause anyone else to raise an eyebrow? (He was critiquing Michelle Kwan’s long program, choreographed by Christopher Dean. You don’t usually hear this sort of thing during sports commentary, but that’s why I love Dick Button and figure skating.) It’s not that I disagree with him about the music or the fact that Michelle’s program has big problems – it just seems to go on and on until it stops which is often true of other skaters’ routines but not what we’ve come to expect from Kwan -- but how sensual can you make straight line footwork? Regarding a climax.....well, national television is hardly the place. Maybe Michelle could have concluded her program by taking her final pose and lighting a cigarette. Comments?

Thanks, Drew and Quiggin, it’s nice to know I wasn’t the only one losing my breakfast that morning. I was stunned..... I think it’s fine to kick the Times around when it’s needful, because the paper is important and powerful (and distinguished) enough to take it. I would add, however, that the NYT is not alone in its ambivalent take on pointyheaded intellectual types, especially those of the French variety. But when it’s the Times, it matters more. Having your writers move around in-house is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. It can be unhealthy for a critic, not all obviously, to stay in the same spot forever and write on one topic. This is not to say that you hand over desks without regard to areas of expertise, but people can write on a variety of subjects with good results. I’ve liked those reviews of Rockwell’s that I’ve seen so far. It’s his overall take, as expressed in the Sunday piece, that had me scratching my head.

Dewdrop, nice topic. I usually buy the Balanchine, ABT, and/or Degas, but I’m inclined to agree with you about not paying full price if at all possible. I buy mine at a local used bookstore (BookBuyers in Mountain View, CA ) but this year they didn’t have either one and I got the Degas last year. So I’m looking at Arabian stallions this time around. They’re almost as beautiful as dancers.

Although Martin was highly influential, back then the Times was powerful but was still one among a number of New York dailies. Now, it’s pretty much the only game in town, especially in regard to dance. Apart from the Wall Street Journal, it is the only true national newspaper (I mean no disrespect to the LA Times or the Wash. Post, both of which clearly view themselves as national papers, and they are in many respects.) This is not to say that the views of other critics are not noted in the building -- but the chief critic at the Times is the big kahuna. Thalictum may have a point. With all due respect to Rockwell’s background, which is admirable, it may not be a mark of respect for dance to reassign him in this way. (I am trying to phrase this carefully, because I don’t want to imply that he’s underqualified.)

I do recall reading at the time that Altman was a hired gun on The Company -- he wasn't doing the project out of a vast pre-existing love for ballet or the Joffrey repertory. Looking at his statement out of context, it does make a certain kind of sense, for him. As the director of the opera, he views the staging as his primary business.

Nice article. Very gallant of Ebert to promote Romola to ballerina status.

I was disturbed by the tenor of this article also. “Condescending” was the adjective that occurred to me, as well. I have nothing against good crossover works, emphasis on the good, but it’s important to make distinctions, be aware of them, and PRESERVE them. In addition, he’s putting up straw men and knocking them down – those “ballet fans who disdain modern dance as dated or amateurish,” for example. And although Rockwell doesn’t say so explicitly, it’s clear that he views those, such as himself, who Look Beyond Boundaries as superior to us blinkered tribalists. It's fine to note that ballet is a relatively young art; but one should try to avoid the appearance of patting the kid on the head. I also found the theme of “dance is lucky to be poor,” however qualified, to be, again, condescending. Gee, maybe The New York Times Company should slash its critics’ salaries to the minimum so we can read their insights safe in the knowledge that they’re “doing it for love.” I’m also not sure that the unhappy fact that much of the work of great choreographers and dancers of the past is lost to us can be counted as an advantage of any kind.

I have no insights, but I hope someone more cosmopolitan does. I hope we get a report back from Moscow that's as wonderful to read and as thorough as your "Ring" report from Adelaide!

I was thinking about that -- we'll all have to move fast. I imagine those tickets will be piping hot.

I second Farrell Fan and lampwick.

ESPN finally got around to showing the Paris competition, and she was as good as reported. (They also showed the Grand Prix final, and she looked tired, but then so did everybody, understandably.)

You may be right. Although I seem to recall that she dropped Tarasova at about the same point in the season, just before nationals.

Thanks, Funny Face. There could be many reasons for this, but I fear that changing coaches this close to nationals is not a good sign. Cohen’s gone from Nicks to Tarasova to Wagner and back to Nicks. A little more of this and we’ll be heading into Nicole Bobek territory, although Cohen is a lot more focused than Bobek ever was. Here’s a link to the press release: http://www.sportsfeatures.com/PressPoint/show.php?id=18598 I’ve been hearing things about Sarah Hughes coming back for a possible defense of her Olympic title. If that’s true, I wonder if it’s a factor here. Cohen has never been a favorite of mine, but it is unfortunate that a major talent seems to be heading in the wrong direction. I hope she proves me wrong. She still has her talent, and she still gets mucho love from the judges – so we will see. The next 18 months are going to be interesting.

I’m afraid I wasn’t too crazy about “Silk Stockings,” although I enjoyed Janis Paige, and Charisse’solo, wherein she discards her Soviet clothes for a series of lacy silken scanties she has hidden around her hotel room. (She was a TERRIBLE substitute for Garbo, though!) There are many of Astaire’s movies apart from the ones he made with Hayworth and Rogers where his solo is really the only dancing high point (or the only high point, period). I liked his number with the umbrella in FF, but it's not one of his really memorable ones. You're very right about Hayworth's pride in the Astaire movies, canbelto. I think she added "Cover Girl" with Kelly to that list, too.

Well, maybe not for Steven Seagal. Drbacc, thank you for reviving this thread. I thought I was all alone out there. I agree with you about Bill Conti’s score, and I ought to have mentioned how distinctive it is (if I’m not mistaken, the LP became a collectible). You’ve also solved a mystery for me. I noted in Karen Kain’s autobiography that she spelled Ditchburn’s first name without the E, and I wondered about the discrepancy. I was happy to have the opportunity to see Ditchburn, too. I had been curious about her because the Seventies was not exactly an era crawling with women ballet choreographers, and it was nice to have the opportunity to see a little bit of her work. As a dancer, she was interesting to watch – long, rather flat torso, legs a teeny bit stocky, on film anyway, and a rather exotic quality, as you note. Didn’t much care for her acting, although granted it was her first time out. (Voice lessons would have been in order.) I also love the Seventies outfits she wears – the long skirts and coats with boots, always a favorite combination of mine. In any case, I’ve seen this on cable several times, and I’m sure I’ll probably watch it again. It’s one of my guilty pleasures.

I think it depends on what you mean by “the next step.” If we’re using that phrase as a synonym for “progress” then I would disagree, heartily. I’m grateful for all the dance that has been committed to film, even unsuccessfully, but dance is unavoidably a three-dimensional experience that will always lose something when not experienced live. If I were a choreographer, I’d certainly be interested in exploring the possibilities, though – not only for memorial purposes but to investigate the aspects you mention. Dance can be flattened or distorted on film, but it can also be enhanced. The pop music example is interesting. I wonder if the rise of highly theatricalized and choreographed pop concerts, with singers blatantly lip-synching to recordings, has something to do with the music video influence -- you’re seeing something resembling a music video on stage, rather than a warts-and-all live performance.