dirac

Oh, dear, not again. This surprises me. Shapiro has appeared in the magazine since Moss took over, and I was actually pleased, because she got an entire page of space, which didn't happen all the time for her before. I hope it's just an oversight (although even an oversight would be bad enough -- they wouldn't just forget about theatre or film).

Just thought I’d revive this in light of recent events, as the most optimistic prognostications for the Sox were borne out last night. I’m a National League girl, so I was rooting for the Cards and yes, Tony La Russa (for his efforts on behalf of ballet, stray animals, and advanced platooning, although his pitchers look like they need a break), but this was nice, too. So congrats to the Sox, and their fans, and their hair. Hope you enjoyed it, dido!

We have had discussions on copyright issues before -- I think mostly in the "News, Events, and Issues" forum. Well, it's Glass' music, he's entitled. David Bossie calling you politically overzealous is like a clock tower sniper saying you have anger management issues.

I’ve wondered about that myself, Farrell Fan. There were professional reasons involved, in that the wives and exes were all in the same company and had to work around one another. But in the accounts that we have from the women involved, there’s also an apparent lack of the marital/sexual jealousy that is common in breakups. Not that there was no jealousy or resentment whatsoever, but all parties concerned seem to have understood the nature of Balanchine’s need to go from one muse to another. And of course Balanchine said that his wives left him, not vice versa, indicating a high level of dissatisfaction. I get the impression that many of them just weren’t that intensely in love with him, or let us say the love wasn’t of the kind that sets one woman against another, or causes long term anger at the man when the relationship is over. There’s a passage in Suzanne Farrell’s autobiography where she mentions that Tanaquil Le Clercq and Diana Adams would invite her to play cards after Balanchine began to single her out and her isolation in the company grew. Farrell says it was very kind of them, and of course it was, but in another sense you could see it as initiating her into the membership of a very select sorority. I haven’t read Laura Jacobs’ book yet but I do plan to get around to it. I enjoy reading her stuff in The New Criterion and although I have nothing special against John Rockwell it would have been nice if she had got Kisselgoff’s chair at the Times, and then I could read her dance criticism on an almost daily basis.

Helena, I think you're right -- Pears took the joke in stride, but Britten was annoyed -- he was inclined to be thin-skinned, especially where Pears was concerned. A remarkable partnership, in all respects.

Peter Pears is very much an acquired taste, for me anyway (never had the privilege of hearing him live). I’ve gotten used to his voice over the years and appreciate him more than I once did, but the reediness oberon mentions sometimes grates. I’m reminded of the parody of a Britten/Pears recital that Dudley Moore performed in “Beyond the Fringe.” Accompanying himself on the piano, Moore sang what purported to be Britten’s adaptation of “Little Miss Muffet” in an unforgettable strangled wail: “Liiiiiiiitle Miss Muffet/Saaaaaaat on her tuffet/Eating her curds/Eating her curds/Eating her curds and WHEEEEEEEEYYYYY.” It’s a stitch.

Hey, it's all showbiz. Grace, let me add my “welcome back” to Alexandra’s. You can’t really argue about personal experience. If someone says she feels empowered, well, that’s how she feels and there’s no disputing that. However, we live in a culture that puts women’s bodies on display for many different reasons, and that encourages women to seek approval from others on the basis of personal looks and appeal. Young girls grow up wanting to be actresses, models, and, yes, ballerinas – women who get on stage or in front of a camera to be, among other things, admired for their looks. Naturally, women feel better when they receive, or believe they are receiving, the assurance that they are beautiful and desirable. (Yes, I know, the same cultural pressure affects men, too. But not in the same way or with the same acuteness.) Entire industries – cosmetics, fashion, and I can’t leave out the plastic surgeons – exist to cater to and enforce this cultural imperative. Now, this is certainly better than wearing a chador and having armed men beat you on the street for exposing your ankles. I trust, however, that that isn’t the standard we’re going by. I think that the foregoing may be one reason why people sense this connection between getting on stage to perform a ballet and getting on stage to take off your clothes, and do sometimes rather more than that, in front of men who have paid for the privilege of looking. I'd say that the former is more "empowering" -- I do loathe that word -- than the latter.

I now have a copy of the book, and although I'm not finished with it, I’m afraid that I concur with Farrell Fan. I admire the book in many respects, but there is an awful lot of “In September 1953, Robbins....in October 1953, Robbins thought about.....” It’s not that much of the information isn’t fascinating, but it is easy to lose the forest for the trees. As might be expected, Jowitt is especially good with the discussions of ballet (not that the Broadway related stuff is bad at all, but much of it is familiar) but even there I thought that some of the descriptions ran a bit long. There’s so much information that vivid personalities like Bernstein, George Abbott, and Jane Bowles just become names on the page. I wonder if Jowitt might not have done better to keep the personal biographical sections to a minimum –they’re clearly not where her heart is – and focused on the work in something like the manner of David Vaughan’s Ashton book. However, if you are interested in dance you shouldn’t miss this. The photographs are well selected, and I especially enjoyed reading the excerpts from the letters of Tanaquil Le Clercq. And Jowitt has a dry, subtle wit that makes itself felt without drawing undue attention to itself.

Rockwell used to be the editor of the NYT Sunday Arts and Leisure section (I don’t know if the Times piece mentions that, I haven’t been able to access the site, for some reason.) He disagreed with the direction Howell Raines was taking with the cultural pages and wound up departing that post. As mentioned, he used to be the Times’ rock critic, and I must say I didn’t mind when he moved from rock to Higher Things, because I thought anyone who regarded Linda Ronstadt’s “Living in the USA” as a desert island recording had to be on medication of some kind. I mean, I like Linda too, but. Also, he introduced Ronstadt to Joseph Papp, leading to her appearance in Gilbert & Sullivan. He seems like a well rounded guy, and although I would have wished for someone with a more specialized dance background, especially ballet, the Times could do considerably worse (and has). It really wasn’t until the seventies or thereabouts that the Times and other papers began looking at rock music, and a group of serious minded rock critics, which included Rockwell and others like Jonathan Cott (whose interview with Balanchine accompanies a collection of photographs, Portrait of Mr. B, if I’m recalling the title correctly) were available to be hired. The Times and other papers also began expanding cultural features and other kinds of “soft” coverage around that time, also

That's a lovely description, Anthony_NYC. Ashton did the choreography for the original production. I have the opera on LP, with the libretto with many pictures (Oh, how I miss those books you used to get with vinyl records!), and it has several photographs of the dancers. I forget the boy's name, but Deanne Bergsma appeared as Tadzio's mother.

It's a thorny piece, from late in Britten's career. I'm not sure if it's the best introduction to his work. (I'd recommend "A Midsummer Night's Dream," "Billy Budd," or "Peter Grimes.")

I’ll take the risk of having stones thrown at me and confess that I’ve always thought “Funny Face” overrated. Don’t get me wrong, it’s excellent in many respects, but I tend to dislike the anti-intellectual jokes – sure, it’s fine to make them, but I thought these were dumb and obvious. I also tend to be bothered by the notion that the Hepburn character can’t really enjoy life until she forgets about reading all those philosophy books and focuses her life on makeup, clothes, and accessorizing. As for Hepburn’s dancing – her solo is all right, but I’m afraid she is awkward in the big duet (“He Loves and She Loves” – it’s not all her fault, she’s not helped by the staging or that big bell shaped skirt.) Hepburn was regularly paired with geezers in her youth – she co-starred with Bogart and Cooper, too. One thing I do like about “The Barkleys of Broadway” is that Astaire and Rogers play a mature couple, not that they could play any other kind at that stage – and, interestingly, in their acting they seem to be at ease with each other as never before. (Rogers was actually twelve years younger than Astaire, but at least she was in the same ballpark.) The movie itself leaves a lot to be desired, unfortunately.

Rogers’ book “My Story” came out in ’90 or ’91. It’s well worth reading. Ginger’s own favorite of the Astaire-Rogers series was “Swing Time.” (Astaire preferred “Top Hat”). I am inclined to agree with Fred. SW has that great dance at the end, but it also has a plot that is feeble even by the generally low standards of the Fred-and-Ginger movies. TH gives pleasure in all departments – plot, score, dancing – and while Astaire’s big number is not the greatest he ever did, it’s still a great one and arguably the one with which he is most closely identified. Some of Ginger’s reasons for preferring SW are personal. She was understandably frustrated with Mark Sandrich, the director of several of the Astaire-Rogers movies – he saw her chiefly as Astaire’s partner, not as a true co-star, and treated her that way. Stevens paid her more attention (um, a lot more, if you catch my drift) and SW gives Ginger a much stronger and larger role than any she had yet had in the series. TH has my favorite Ginger dress, the notorious feathered one she wears for “Cheek to Cheek” that nobody liked but Ginger and her mom. I think Rita Hayworth is better matched with Gene Kelly in “Cover Girl,” but she’s good with Fred, too. Unlike some of Astaire’s partners from the early forties, she was a trained dancer. Rita’s gorgeous and sexy, but she has a sweetness and vulnerability that other such goddesses – like Zeta-Jones, since her name has come up –don’t have. She’s a nice girl, even when she plays bad ones. She had a very sad life, and although glebb is right when he says men were crazy about her, they also didn’t treat her very well. carbro, I agree with you about Leslie Caron in “Daddy Long Legs.” Apart from the extreme age difference, she and Astaire seem to be dancing on different soundstages. (And I’ve never been a huge fan of Caron’s dancing. My favorite Caron musical is “Gigi” and it has no dancing at all, which is fine with me!)

I find it hard to believe that the company would issue a press release along these lines unless the decision was 99% made. That said, there are occasions when that 1% can make all the difference in the world. I hope they know what they’re doing.

I think it has to be historical from the author’s perspective. I like Mary Renault, who’s just as good as Mashinka says, and Gore Vidal – Burr and Julian are two of my favorite books, and 1876 is very good, too. I also enjoyed Susan Sontag’s The Volcano Lover, about the Hamilton-Nelson affair. Forever Amber is a very bad book, but I enjoyed it anyway. There’s a certain basic credibility in the story – the heroine has great beauty, great ambition, a sort of low animal cunning, and absolute ruthlessness – she doesn’t shirk from murder – and as it happens those qualities are just what she needs to get ahead in that time and place (the Restoration -- Charles II has just come back, and Amber spends most of the book plotting her way into his bed). Kathleen Winsor is not much of a writer, and she lards her dialogue with expressions that might be from the 17th century (“Odsfish!”) and others that are definitely not. The sex scenes were a big deal in its day, but no longer.

I was just reading the interview with Bentley (in the NY Observer, by Alexandra Jacobs. I assume we have a link to it, haven’t checked). It's quite something. As in previous pieces, her background in ballet is discussed at length.

I shouldn’t have said “sequel.” Dogville is actually the first installment of a projected “USA” trilogy, apparently. GWTW, I agree with you about von Trier’s treatment of women, but it didn’t bother me as much in Waves and Dancer because I thought the protagonists were able – with the help of Emily Watson and Bjork – to transcend their (horrible) situations. I didn’t get that feeling with Dogville, in part because Kidman didn’t work that kind of magic on her role – not necessarily her fault. Ed, it occurs to me that the townspeople didn’t inflict quite everything. I thought it was interesting that although Grace is chained up, raped, etc., she’s never slapped around or beaten up, not that much, anyway. You would think that the awareness that she’s completely helpless would invite that kind of abuse, but apparently that particular form of degradation doesn’t much interest LVT. I thought the ending was a response to the questions Caan poses to Kidman in the car. Essentially, he’s asking, Which side are you on? Are you going to keep resisting the way the world is? And that’s her answer.

I was only able to listen to a snippet, but Peyroux sounds as if she's worth following up. Thanks!

That’s a great link. Some of those shows sound as if they’re worth ordering. Nora, it’s veering way off topic, but there’s a story I always liked about the making of “The Guardsman.” Irving Thalberg (MGM head of production, the Memorial Award fellow) held a sneak preview in some remote California suburb. The commentary cards from the audience were devastating. Thalberg had the courage, or nerve, to show these to the Lunts, and Fontanne chewed him out, but good. She said the film would find an audience, but not of these people, and the whole preview process was plainly a waste of time if such were the results. (The movie did do well, in the cities, mostly.) I’m sorry they didn’t do another movie, though. In The Guardsman, they’re clearly getting used to the camera, and it would have been interesting to see what they did – especially Lunt – in their next one. Thalberg wanted them to come back and do Maxwell Anderson’s “Elizabeth and Essex” but as Nora notes, they said uh-uh. (Alfred was agreeable, Lynn not.)

aspirant, I actually didn’t mind the didacticism as much as I thought I would. I did think the ending caters to a vengeance-wish that is troublesome – it’s really not that far off from Gladiator, The Patriot, The Punisher, Man on Fire – any number of contemporary commercial film products that build up the nastiness of the bad guys so excessively that the audience can cheer when they meet bloody ends, and feel good about it. I do plan to check out the sequel. Like Grace, I’m a glutton for punishment.

He won the Irving Thalberg Memorial Award a few years back -- they give those out at the Oscars, so maybe that's what you're thinking of? He won Best Director for Reds, too, many moons ago. As writer/director/actor, Beatty was involved with several of the seminal films of the late sixties/seventies: Bonnie and Clyde, Shampoo, etc. His recent credits have been rather less interesting, although I have a soft spot for Bulworth, and you could argue that big sister Shirley MacLaine was/is the bigger star, but he's an important figure. You know, I never realized that my brain was storing so many particulars from Warren Beatty's career. No wonder I can't make any money.

“Least effective?” I’ll say. The phrase that occurred to me was “stunningly hamfisted.” (Von Trier shows us photographs by Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, and others, to the tune of David Bowie’s “Young Americans.”) To Ed’s list of literary and theatrical influences, I’d also add Durrenmatt’s “The Visit.” I’d also add that there are several “shocking bits,” so it’s best to be prepared. I finally got around to seeing this – rented at my local video store. I put the tape in the machine and curled up on the sofa, ready to watch Lars von Trier put another poor woman through the wringer. (Those who have seen Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark will know what I mean.) The characters, played by a powerhouse cast, are one dimensional, as Ed notes – pawns on the gameboard, with the arguable exception of the equivocal figure of Thomas, played by Paul Bettany. Everything is laid out for you, nothing is left to chance or for you to figure out for yourself, but once you’re accustomed to the rigidity of the conception it works fine – von Trier does virtuoso stuff with clever editing and now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t jump cuts. And there is some good writing. I especially liked a scene with Skarsgard and Kidman at about midpoint, where he begins to hint to her, broadly, that her unwillingness to let him touch her shows a lack of “respect.” However, the whole thing leaves you with a queasy voyeuristic feeling, seeing frail pale Kidman sexually degraded and put in manacles, and the fact that the writer/director is on “her” side doesn’t really alter the creepy effect. (I wonder if it would have played differently with a less famous actor in the role – such as Bryce Dallas Howard, who took over Kidman’s part for the sequel when Kidman chickened out, not that I blame her.) Most unconvincing casting: Lauren Bacall as an old lady known as “Ma” who runs the town store.

Depressing news. I was looking forward to seeing the company in Berkeley again this year. I hope this isn't a portent of future bad news.

I don’t imagine Beatty will have to choke it down, however things stand in November! I still think he’s a good choice if we're looking at movie stars. (And I should note he's never been a favorite of mine as an actor.) No one working in the conditions of commercial Hollywood is going to be without turkeys in his resume, and acting as director, producer, and/or writer, Beatty has some fine films to his credit. GeorgeBfan, I quite agree that Tandy and Cronyn were a distinguished theatrical pair, but they were never at the Lunts’ level as stars. (And the Lunts never, no exceptions, appeared separately once they were in a position to dictate terms of employment.)

I glanced through the book at Tower Books the other day. It looks very good!