dirac

I didn’t say anything about Elton John because in order to be consistent, I’d have to disqualify him on the same grounds as Sutherland. But I adore him, in spite of “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” and the other schlocko classics he’s produced for us in recent decades. Remember the platform shoes? Bernie Taupin? “Daniel”? He's just the coolest. I don’t think the honors have to be a matter of “Only Americans Need Apply! Foreigners Keep Out!”, but I do think that if artists from other countries get the prize, it should be because they’ve made a specific contribution to American culture, as Balanchine did. Otherwise the honors tend to lose their point. Lynn Fontanne, since I brought her name up, was an Englishwoman. However, she married an American, lived here, made her name and spent most of her working life here, enriched the works of contemporary American playwrights with her performances. More than good enough for me.

Well.....I think you can justify the inclusion of Beatty. No, he’s not the world’s greatest actor, but he’s had a reasonably distinguished career as a producer, director, and writer. He’s also a good public citizen. Sure, Pacino is a better actor, but the last time I saw him collect an award he sounded totally whacked out, and I’m sure Warren will give a graceful speech. Also, he’ll bring Annette, and maybe a kid or two. In addition, honoring Beatty would please the late President Kennedy, who wanted Warren to play him in the PT 109 movie. (A far more appropriate choice than anyone realized at the time!) John Williams certainly qualifies – he has definitely been the most outstanding and influential composer for film in the last three decades (I prefer Howard Shore, myself, but it’s a matter of taste.) They do tend to induct celebrity couples together – they did the same with Woodward and Newman. Very thoughtful of them to try to avoid potential marital discord. (They did induct Lynn Fontanne on her own, but Alfred Lunt was dead and so probably did not feel snubbed.) All of these couples worked together professionally, of course, but only Lunt and Fontanne really qualify as a true star team -- they worked only together and were indissolubly paired in the public mind as the others aren’t, quite. I can’t see any good reason for including Sutherland. You can make a case for Domingo, who was honored awhile back, because as one of the Three Tenors he has done a great deal to popularize opera in this country, among other things. Sutherland was a great star, well known here, sang at the Met a lot, but it’s not the same thing. How about Phyllis Curtin? A fine and undercelebrated singer, a mainstay of City Opera in its early years, and it would be a nice compensation for losing Giulio Cesare to an earlier honoree, Beverly Sills. And why no one from the world of dance?

Lord Elgin thought they would look good in his mansion. I believe the technical term is "stealing." I'm sure your book must mention how Byron felt on the subject! I always felt sorry for the first Lady Elgin (and the second Lady Elgin, for that matter). I know she married Robert Ferguson after the divorce, but not much about her life afterward. I hope things worked out well for her.

Nilas has also been active in the world of opera. There was an item in Opera News from a year ago that said he would be acting as dancer, choreographer and 'visual consultant' as I recall the phrase, for a production of Aida, and that he had other such commitments in the future.

I actually liked "The Unmaking of a Dancer." She does take a jaded view in some respects, but not in others, and she has some interesting things to say and writes very well. I thought of that book the other day when Cartier-Bresson’s death was in the papers – she was in class the day he came in to take those wonderful photographs of Balanchine, and she wasn’t impressed with his M.O. (she was nineteen) – until the pictures came out. However, as mentioned, it’s not a book for young readers, it’s for adults. Brady has written an interesting novel, “Theory of War,” which is a very different work, but readers of both books will recognize certain autobiographical themes.

Paquita, thanks so much for posting this! It's a very good read, with much food for thought. I thought what he said about Carla Fracci was cute. Must be a tad disquieting to have your partner gazing passionately at....your forehead.

Relieved to hear it.

Well -- he doesn't know much about ballet, and it doesn't sound as if he cares to. On the other hand, the concept of "chintz ballet" holds much promise. Take it away, Mario Buatta!

No, it isn’t about ballet, but Bentley is a well known writer on the subject and not only does she bring it up in her books about, er, other topics but she is usually identified as such (the NY Times piece, for example, didn’t mention her by name, but as “a former ballet dancer”). I also think carbro is onto something. There are many varieties of exhibitionism, and it is possible that the same impulse that drew Bentley to the ballet stage also drew her to stripping, as well.

I haven’t yet started Jowitt’s book and so cannot judge, but Farrell Fan’s comments echo a concern that sprang to my mind when I heard the book was six hundred pages plus. Of course, there are going to be goodies in such a wealth of detail, but I think the trend toward the “First he did this. Then he did that. Then he almost went there, but decided not to because the weather was bad, so he went over here instead” brand of biography may have gone a bit far. I am currently reading Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton, and was favored with such information about the Hamiltons' home life as the following (from vague memory) about what the Hamiltons were accustomed to have for dinner: “Eliza served beef, mutton, and veal, with [some veggies, can’t recall], topped with apples and pears.” I waited with bated breath to find out which desserts were customarily served chez Hamilton, but on that subject I fear Chernow was coy, as Aaron Burr would say.

There was a piece in the NY Times the other day about sexy books going mainstream and aimed at the general reader. Mention was made of a forthcoming book by "a former ballet dancer," which will celebrate the ungainly joys of a certain anally oriented activity. I wondered if this was the “erotic memoir” Bentley threatened us with some time ago and checked Amazon.com. Apparently it is, and the publication date is this October. I must say that Bentley achieves empowerment in the most curious ways. I suppose it’s easier than, say, running for the Senate. (The book is already listed on Amazon; I particularly enjoyed looking at the “Customers who bought this book also liked” section.) I really do recommend "Costumes by Karinska."

However, by admitting in 1942 that he was gay, Robbins put it on the record, and he did it himself. It's hard not to believe that he wasn't being a teeny bit opportunistic. I suspect -- can't prove, obviously -- that exposure of his sexuality was not the real, or let's say the only, reason for Robbins' appearance before HUAC. Not only was his career looking much better in 1952, but there was the prospect of work in television and the movies. A hostile witness before the Committee didn’t need to worry about his future in the theatre, but work in television and film would be closed off indefinitely. Robbins had prospects in both areas (he couldn’t have any way of knowing that his career in Hollywood would ultimately work out not too well) and there’s not a doubt in my mind that these considerations would have played a role in his decision. Obviously, that’s not a motive he would broadcast to the world. One doesn't like to judge a fellow when not in his shoes, of course, but there it is.

I agree with you on all counts, DancingGiselle. I think the situation was worse in 2000, with that catastrophic vault error, than it was here. Hamm’s dramatic win had given men’s gymnastics positive exposure in this country it’s never had before, which I was very happy about, and now look. I blame the federation, but don’t get me started on that...... Speaking for myself, I feel about dance elements in gymnastics the way I feel about jazz-rock fusion: why? Both are just fine by themselves, and cross-fertilization isn’t necessary or even desirable.

I agree with you, lampwick. The "dance" moves from the girls are often hard for me to watch. I much prefer the men's events, and the guys don't wear glittery eye shadow, either. I'm not sure how far we want to get into gymnastics arcana, but it;s a measure of the poor reporting of these unfortunate incidents by most of the media – not to mention the craven behavior of the gymnastics federation -- that so many people have the impression that Paul Hamm’s medal “rightfully” belongs to Yang Tae Young. (This is not a knock at you, oberon.) For a number of relatively obscure but perfectly clear reasons available upon request, it just ain’t so. If my information is correct, it’s not entirely clear that the scoring adjustment in the second episode came as a result of the crowd’s (very bad) behavior, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it played a role, considering what’s been going on the last two weeks. To answer oberon’s question, it would be disastrous if audience participation, especially of this kind, played a role in ballet competitions! --not that I approve of the latter in general. For those interested in a brief recap of events, see below: http://www.portervillerecorder.com/article...s/d84lpkso0.txt

A beautiful letter, although I’d not compare Robbins to Salieri – particularly not the Shaffer Salieri. (I didn’t really see the need for a dig at Martins in this context, either.)

That is what you said, Alexandra. I was reading fast. Sorry.

I think it's not just that "money can buy you anything" is in the ascendant, but that the present view seems to be "money can buy you anything, and that's okay, who would expect anything different"? BW raises an interesting point concerning the sex of the two patrons profiled. You have two middle aged women getting their pictures taken with young men, not old guys posing with young girls. (I confess I was wondering a little about the widow who’s sponsoring Stiefel as a sort of memorial to her late hubby.) I think finally it’s a matter not only of business or ethics, but taste. You have to wonder about people who seem to have no scruple or second thoughts about publicly laying claim to another person's time and attention, no matter what the ostensibly beneficial circumstances.

This is an idea of such gruesome badness that one hardly knows where to begin (although all of you have done just fine so far. ) I felt especially bad for the Atlanta Ballet dancer, who seems to be at the beck and call of this lady, with management’s full approval. “Ms. Courts plans to invite Mr. Welker over for dinner at her house, so her four sons can get to know him. ‘It really makes people human you admire from afar,’ she said.” Very disturbing.

And these days you also have the cult of the CEO still going strong in spite of everything -- there's something about the title that apparently endows very ordinary MBAs with almost mystical powers, at least until the company tanks. The appointment of someone as the "CEO" conveys the message that We Mean Business -- often all too literally, alas.

For what it’s worth, I’m inclined to think that Blanche is closer to 35 than 30, somewhere in there. The actresses cast tend to be about 35 or over – sometimes considerably over – although Uta Hagen wasn’t yet 30 when she did the role right after Tandy, who was pushing forty, as was Leigh. Claire Bloom was in her early thirties when she did the role in ’74, which is just about right, I think – although, as Ari notes, it doesn’t matter nearly so much in the theatre.

Thanks, Mel. I'm aware of the distinction, but my impression is that this writer isn't part of the in group, although as Big Lee notes she is highly (and correctly) critical of the way the one -- count 'em, one -- gay character is treated in the movie. Membership status aside, I did think the relative freedom of her references here, in comparison with the caution of the rather staid "ballerina of colour" was notable.

It is Stars and Stripes, although it sounds as if this writer wouldn't have much use for Steadfast Tin Soldier, either. Crude language aside, this is funny and on target, but goes on way too long, and making fun of Center Stage is about as challenging as dynamiting fish, IMO. She’s not a ballet fan, obviously, but she’s read Joan Acocella, or heard of her, and she knows who Balanchine is. That’s more than you can say for many. I’ve read Wing Chun before and I often like her stuff, although on the evidence of this she maybe needs to stop focusing on mass media entertainment products. There is more to life. She liked the Romeo and Juliet pas de deux, but nixes Stars and Stripes and the carnage committed by Stroman, which is exactly as awful as she makes it sound. Fair enough. Political correctness note: Apparently these days some people are careful to refer to “ballerinas of colour,” but it’s okay to label a guy gay and toss around the term queer because, hey, he’s a dancer, isn’t he? I don't quite follow this.

Teachout can make a decent stab at several forms of criticism as Ari notes, so it’s not as if he isn’t well-rounded, always a good thing in any critic. He is certainly right of center culturally and politically, no problem for me, but I do find him a tad predictable, which is an issue, again speaking for myself. Predictability in a critic is not in itself a Bad Thing – once you begin to read a good writer regularly, you’ll get a general idea of his views and how he approaches his subject, and be able to anticipate to some extent what he will say. I don’t, as a rule, find what Teachout has to say in his more ambitious efforts to be especially illuminating and I don’t look to him for unexpected insights or anything with the force of revelation --he's kind of obvious, in short. However, I'll always take a look at what he has to say. I quite agree, kfw, none of those gentlemen could be accused of taking a personal interest in such matters. Particularly the Attorney General, whose fervent disapproval of dancing is a matter of public record.

I don’t like to see nudity in a ballet. Sometimes it’s permissible in a play, but I don’t see how it can ever be appropriate for a non-naturalistic art form like ballet. I find it distracting – not in a sexual way, but my mind starts wandering along the lines of “Aren’t they cold? Oh, look, cellulite,” and so forth. I also feel sorry for the performers (although I suppose that without a certain exhibitionist streak you wouldn’t be onstage in the first place). As I was watching Mark Morris’ “Sylvia” at San Francisco Ballet, at one point I wondered idly how Morris was going to work a major butt display into the proceedings. Not only did he work it in, but it was a nice naked one, for Endymion, natch, and as the poor dancer lay there in all his glory I imagined him thinking, You know, Igor Youskevitch never had to do this..................

I think it was Swan Lake that had Croce imagining what-might-be and if-only. The ballet that pops into my head is Symphonic Variations, which I first saw just recently when San Francisco Ballet did it. I hope as the company performs it more and becomes comfortable with it (which they will do, God willing), I'll see more.