dirac

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.

I don't think that Gottlieb's beef is that personal – if he thought the company was in dazzling shape, there's not a doubt in my mind that he'd eat his plate of crow with gusto. However, he may have gotten to the point where he's writing too much of the same thing on NYCB – as Dale notes, it seems as if we're getting these constant passing shots at Ringer, not to mention the regular references to Martins' nefarious practice of not allowing former dancers in to coach. It's not that this isn't a valid point – it certainly is. But he seems to bring it up in every other column, and it begins to sound like overkill. I might be inclined to overkill myself, if I felt I was seeing an institution that meant so much to me apparently in a long term collapse, but maybe it is too much. I held on to that Vanity Fair article too, perky. It's one of my favorites, and the photographs are beautiful.

scoop, you're a nicer person than I am. I rather enjoy the sadistic closeups of the losers, although not always. I still recall Michael Caine's crushed expression from last year after Adrien Brody's name was announced – he's never won as Best Actor, and you could tell he was in bad shape. What I thought was really nasty was Billy Crystal addressing Murray from the stage after Murray lost. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

Actually,The Red Shoes wasn't great in its time, although it was a big hit, rather unexpectedly so. It's a classic, but not a great film. People in 1948 didn't take that stuff seriously any more than we do, although there's more emotional truth in Shearer's dilemma than is sometimes realized. You may find it dreadful to watch and hear, but opinions differ, as this thread indicates.

I'd question that chronology, but suggest only that Ibsen at his most realistic (and he often wasn't all THAT realistic) never forgot to address the needs of drama. The Red Shoes remains supreme for me because it conveys the exhilaration that this art can produce in both audience and performers as no other ballet movie does.

What Drew said. I was also struck by Iannone's reference to "seasoned critics like Arlene Croce" when Croce hasn't written regularly on the company for quite some time now. (Iannone's own criticisms sound like the sort of thing Croce was writing about a decade ago -- in fact, I seem to recall that Croce brought up the "Oedipal issue" back then.) Regarding Ringer, I don't think Gottlieb really cares what the other critics think. What stood out for me was his grudging praise for a dancer he's never had a good word for -- he actually had nice things to say about Weese's Aurora!

sandik, you are correct, it was Debbie Allen. I was confusing the two of them. Actually, Murray's been doing nominatable work for years now, IMO – Groundhog Day and Rushmore are the two that spring to mind – he just hasn't gotten the nod before. I'm sure he'll have other good roles – but they may not be in the kind of movies to which the Academy generally pays attention. Giannina, it was nice to see Penn win, but I must confess I thought Tim Robbins' performance in Mystic River was several pounds' worth of boiled ham. It wasn't all his fault – the overwrought dialogue didn't help – but he's done a lot better, I think. Kevin Bacon was great, and completely overlooked – probably because he wasn't Acting with a capital A.

Between Nikolais and Martins, I'd plump for the latter, but I'd rather watch "White Widow" than one of those Martins "quirky" pas de deux served up occasionally by SFB, I grant you that. I also agree that nothing could be done about the Star's bad taste. I really don't want to be mean about the movie. I was just so disappointed. From The Red Shoes to Invitation to the Dance to The Turning Point to Center Stage to this, it seems to me that ballet movies are definitely reversing the evolutionary process.

Yes, she did. The late Robert Garis said she gave a beautiful rendition, although she didn't quite have the power and stamina of Farrell.

It is remarkable how many statements of that kind were attributed to Derrida, although I'm sure Michael had only the best of intentions. As one on the west coast who gets much of my information about the current state of NYCB here, I also appreciate these reports!

I've already unburdened myself of my negative observations on other threads, but I agree, reluctantly, with atm711 (and with all due respect to the Joffrey fans on the board). I was particularly distressed by the Blue Snake ballet, which the reviewer in People magazine, no less, described accurately as "the dream ballet from Shrek." And then you had that shot of McDowell, et al., applauding furiously, as if they'd just seen Fonteyn and Nureyev's first Giselle. That was painful.

oberon, the Best Actor category is historically the most competitive, as it was again this year, because there are so many good roles for male stars out there. I liked Crowe in M&C too, but I must confess his delivery was so understated I often couldn't hear him very well, so I can't really judge. I'm sure Academy members looked at Keaton and thought, This is why we didn't vote for you, Diane. Thank God we picked the hot babe and not some middle aged broad in drag. Adolphe Menjou would be upset with you, Farrell Fan. His suits were far better cut.

Thank you so much. That picture of Varmilov slays me.