dirac

I'd bet a large sum of money that Crystal is furiously jealous that Bill is getting Oscar nominations and doesn't have to appear in hideous sequels like "Analyze That." I think the wisest thing would be for Murray to search out a role that requires lots of yelling and crying. That ought to do it for him. Zeta-Jones is a true dish. You're right, there are very few stars these days with that old-time glamour, and she's one of them. I enjoy that aura of "Yes, I'm gorgeous, I'm a movie star, I'm the center of attention, and I just love it!" that she emanates.

Update from Reuters, as the date approaches. The ladies lead the story, natch: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...24&pageNumber=0

Certainly such radical adjustments can affect the voice, as mentioned earlier. As for the effects of obesity upon the health in general, I refer you to the Centers for Disease Control, which has had much to say on the subject recently. The article in People mentioned that Voigt had been trying to lose weight for health reasons, not cosmetic ones.

Well, Eaglen and Heppner are virtually the only singers to field for a decent Tristan these days, so of course productions will be built around them, as it were, and would be even if they had to be hauled to the stage on a dolly. The cold fact is that Voigt is still replaceable while Eaglen and Heppner, for certain roles, are not. I think the language used by Covent Garden's people in their public statements on this matter is unconscionable, no matter what the circumstances, but I didn't get the impression that they were planning to hang a sign saying that the seriously overweight need not apply under any circumstances. Clara76, you're absolutely right, and Voigt herself has wondered aloud about the same thing. Weight simply isn't the fraught issue for men that it is for women, and you can see this in fields other than opera. There was a short but interesting item in People magazine on l'affaire Voigt, and the article outlined the many and varied efforts that Voigt has made over the years to reduce her weight. She's one of those people who has tried and tried – fen-phen, everything. It sounds to me as if she should forget about that and focus on her singing. Many others will be ready to hire her, I'm sure. Prejudice against the fat is one of the last kinds of discrimination that it's still "okay" to indulge in, and that's terribly wrong. (Voigt apparently has been receiving hate mail denouncing her as a self-indulgent fatty.) As far as opera singers are concerned, there's no scientific evidence linking great big bodies to great big voices, but that's unrelated to the discrimination issue.

It's a very good book, well worth hunting down. I'm sure alibris.com or powells.com might have it, too, and of course our site sponsor should always be first look! I'm afraid we won't see the tape commercially any time soon. I remember reading how upset Farrell was when permission couldn't be obtained to show clips from the ballet for "Elusive Muse" (and it's upsetting for viewers, too; it really does hurt the movie). It's a shame.

I agree. It does make you appreciate the original movie, though – it seems like a very slight piece, and it is, but it has a real feel for the period (although Patrick is very eighties), the music, and you see lots of real dancing. Romola Garai and Diego Luna are clearly not pros, although the latter at least shows enthusiasm and energy, and unfortunately this also means that we don't get to see many expert dancers who would show them up. When the action moves to the clubs, it's not so much dancing as sweating and groping (it's very odd, the Anglos in the movie never perspire even in the hottest weather and the Cubans are perpetually dripping) and as Old Fashioned says, it's very contemporary groping, not what they'd have been doing back then. When Swayze appears, his smooth moving is such a relief you feel like cheering. Also, Garai is, on the evidence of this, quite a bad actress; she seems to be all jawline, and she's a little too hearty for either Luna or Jonathan Jackson – when the latter comes on to her a little strong in a car, you don't know why she doesn't just swat him aside like a mosquito. Her character is supposed to be a star student, Radcliffe-bound, although this seems doubtful considering that she scrunches up her forehead to indicate she's thinking.

And if it's unavailable on Amazon or elsewhere, I often see the Balanchine Library tapes popping up on eBay from time to time.

I think Katita Waldo of SFB also qualifies. Moira Shearer certainly created a striking visual image with that red head, especially in the almost cartoonishly vivid Technicolor of the Forties and Fifties, but her fame wasn't based upon her hair, although that and The Red Shoes are probably the first things that spring to mind when her name is mentioned. In Striking a Balance, she told Barbara Newman that critics often singled her out for her coloring because they felt it wasn't right for certain parts. I also remember a passage from "Secret Muses" by Julie Kavanagh, in which it's noted that certain company members were wont to refer to Shearer's Cinderella as "Gingerella."

silvy, one of the tapes of Balanchine Library collection features "Ballo" with the original principals - Merrill Ashley and Robert Weiss.

I'm pretty sure there's no empirical basis for linking poundage with a big voice, as opposed to correlation. Crash diets are certainly not good for a singer -- any such radical messing with one's instrument needs to be approached cautiously. (Callas' vocal difficulties may have been exacerbated by too much weight loss, but her problems lay deeper than that. I have tapes of her early in her career, and even then there were these sudden mysterious lapses.)

The eyebrows give him away, Giannina. It would be presumptuous of me to make requests, but as a contrast to the wonderful picture above, it would certainly be nice for everyone to see that Jack Mitchell shot of Kriza as Billy the Kid. He's wearing chaps but no shirt, with hands on his hips and -- what can I say, we're talking Stud Muffin City. Even by ballet standards, he was a major cutie. I'm sure his dancing was splendid, too, of course.

Voigt is a wonderful singer, and she's lost a lot of weight in recent years. I'm inclined to agree with Estelle that there's more to this than just a costume. Which still doesn't justify the comments made by the stagers. As for Eaglen, she is indeed spectacularly heavy. Which is fine by me, although I can't help wondering about the health issues involved - I understand that obesity on that scale can create severe back problems and put great pressure on the internal organs, among other things.

Maybe it shouldn't come as news at this late date that pretty people have an edge over the less pretty. Ask Renee Fleming, who has a lovely voice, true, but whose exceptional looks have clearly played a big role in the hype. It is hard to gauge from the data provided in this article exactly what happened, but it's not unheard of for actors or singers to be given the boot from a production because they don't fit, no pun intended. Things get underway, changes are made, conflicts develop, and somebody gets the axe. If Voigt were a star of Sutherland calibre, the production would be altered to suit her, of course. I suggest also that we not take it for granted that Ms. Schwanewilms is not the possessor of a fine voice, even if she is not well known. The language used by the honchos responsible for Voigt's firing is absolutely inexcusable, but on the other hand I can also see that some productions might call for singers who can look good and move around some, not that Ms. Voigt is guilty of the latter. That said, I don't know why they'd hire her in the first place, if that were the main concern. Returning to Alexandra's point, some opera is naturalistic, some less so. Il Trovatore isn't Wozzeck. And you wouldn't cast a singer who is resident in Lard City as Stanley Kowalski in Previn's "A Streetcar Named Desire." It all depends.

hockeyfan 228, I think they sort of forgot about the comedy stuff -- they were too engrossed in creating their nouveau Judith Krantz romantic dilemma for Carrie. atm711, maybe I shouldn't have said "aging" – rather harsh, and after all, Parker is twenty years younger than Baryshnikov.

I think the reason people may puzzle about Franco's function in the film is that the relationship isn't really developed -- the characters aren't developed, in fact -- they're a couple of nice kids with dimples and that's about all we learn about them. I don't see any pressing need for the love interest would have to be played by a non-dancer, unless they just wanted to get away from the theatre for a bit.

dido, there have been many, MANY articles on the subject, so you shouldn't have too much trouble finding the information you need. As a general comment, most movies depart from the historical record in some respects -- some more than others. I actually think that contemporary movies are held to a much higher standard in this respect than they were in the past.

I should have added that I didn't intend my previous post for anyone who's already posted to this topic -- just trying to head any trouble off at the pass.

Well, Homans does review "The Balanchine Couple" program, way down in the article (it's three pages). However, as kfw notes, most of the rest of the piece seems to be taken up with what can now be referred to as anti-Martins boilerplate, in which Critic X finds thus-and-such to be lacking in Balanchine productions at NYCB, but all is not lost – thus-and-such can be found in the stagings of the Suzanne Farrell Ballet. Some make this case much better than others; Homans doesn't provide many specifics, but she's toned down the overwrought rhetoric that marked her NY Times piece on NYCB awhile back. She praises "Chaconne" and "Serenade," which seem to be the two ballets that everyone agrees the company does very well, and makes allowances for those that don't look so good. Homans still has a tendency to overstate, and statements like the following seem to come out of nowhere: Aside from the fact that this is a radical oversimplification of the issues involved, and doesn't lead to anything else in the article, any recent denunciations of Balanchine's ballets as un-American have escaped my notice. I would also question her leadoff statements about the significance of Farrell's career in the context of Balanchines oeuvre. That he chose her to define his last word in contemporary ballerina style is clear, but Homans doesn't emphasize Farrell's extraordinary influence as a dancer so much as her role as an inspiration for great work. Well…..although Mozartiana is a relatively young ballet, it does seem as if it will take its place on the summit with Balanchine's other masterworks, but Chaconne was not made for Farrell but revamped for her and Martins, Don Quixote's stoutest supporters wouldn't call it a classic for the ages, and calling either one a masterpiece would be highly debatable, I think. It's generally conceded that perhaps the most impressive flowering of Balanchine's late-mastery was the first Stravinsky Festival, when Farrell had been gone from the company for several years. I don't believe this lessens or negates Farrell's importance – but calling her an inspiration for masterpieces actually seems to me to be a rather questionable claim. Homans winds up with: "The New York City Ballet has moved on……If the Suzanne Farrell Ballet becomes a permanent and full-time troupe at the Kennedy Center, it could change our cultural landscape. Washington could become home to a world-class ballet company dedicated to preserving and extending Balanchine's legacy."

I haven't seen the movie, but it doesn't necessarily sound less accurate than the Biblical "spectaculars" with which Hollywood used to favor us a few decades ago. (On the other hand, Gibson has invited that kind of criticism with his insistence that his movie gets everything right, and those movies weren't aspiring to the brand of seriousness Gibson is claiming here.) I've spoken with people who liked the film, and they say they found it sincerely moving and the violence not slasher-ish, at all. As for the box office – many people predicted the movie would open big, drawing in the curious and then fading quickly, but this is clearly no flash-in-the-pan audience. Like "The Passion" or not, it has clearly struck a chord, and I think Hollywood is going to have to take notice. Note: as Board Hall Monitor, I will be keeping a close eye on this thread for any posts that venture out of the realm of civilized discussion. This is a movie that's excited more than one kind of "Passion," and while there's no way to talk about this film without acknowledging that, we need to keep things polite and respect the views of others. Thanks for your understanding.

You do indeed have to be a subscriber, but sometimes if you check back in to the site after some weeks, previously unavailable articles can be accessed. Thanks for the tip, kfw, maybe others will read and post.

Slate makes one of its infrequent acknowledgments of dance, in a brief piece called "How's Choreography Recorded?": http://slate.msn.com/id/2096578/

I did read the Post interview, and I must say Martins has a gift for shooting himself in the foot during such sessions, not that that should necessarily be held against him. He actually has a case, but he doesn't make it very well. It's clearly not quite fair of him to say that according to his critics, the company has been failing for twenty years, especially when you think of the positively fulsome hosannas that greeted his accession to the leadership -- "The magic kingdom is in his keeping" etc. You have to wonder, even if you're looking for reasons to defend him, why the man who's "too busy" to coach can somehow find time to choreograph for Barbie and compose "holistic workouts" or whatever they were, for videos. (I was posting simultaneously with Alexandra. I don't mean to ignore her post. )

Alexandra already made this point, but it's worth reiterating -- much depends on the critic's forum. It's highly unlikely that Gottlieb would wind up working for the NY Times, but rest assured that if he did, he would be maintaining a different tone. Or, as I read elsewhere recently, "Nobody reads the Observer." Except, of course, for us.

Yes, and if Sean Astin had been nominated and won, it would have broken the previous record for Oscars won. As it was, ROTK just tied it. It might almost seem like overkill. "Gee Peter, we LOVED your trilogy! Sorry we ignored you for two years! Here, have some Oscars! Your hands are full? We'll put a couple in your pocket! And here's one for the goody bag....."

The Vanity Fair article was also a very different kind of piece, a long history of the company. You could argue that his comments about the company's improvement then were devised to give his writing the appearance of objectivity, but I'm more inclined to believe that, well, he saw signs of improvement. That was five years ago – plenty of time to change his mind. I don't see the company and can't comment from that standpoint, but his stance seems to me pretty consistent overall. I don't think there's any solution to the dilemma Alexandra mentions. Sometimes critics just stop because there's nothing good to say and they don't want to keep on being unrelentingly negative. People think that critics live to criticize, but I remember the late Pauline Kael saying that she retired in part because it was a bad period for movies and she just couldn't bring herself to review any more lousy ones, it was painful.