dirac

As I'm on the other coast, I can't comment on Bouder, but Marie-Jeanne was another small dancer with a lot of oomph, going by the roles Balanchine made for her.

I was puzzled by the "wasted as Florine" comment, too. It wasn't a long review, and maybe Dunning didn't have enough space to elucidate. However, the "so-and-so was wasted as thus-and-such" construction, a familiar one, generally means what Alexandra says – that the role isn't big enough or good enough. Clearly wrong in this case – it's not like giving Fairchild a walk-on as the maid, which is the impression I'd get from this if I wasn't familiar with the ballet.

tempusfugit, I figured you were speaking of the Weslow interview, since you mentioned it earlier. I was only commenting that I had another in mind when I brought up the book.

Let's call it good bad taste.

Yes, there were those shows that seemed to last as long as World War II, and left you just as shellshocked. I also enjoy seeing the editors and the sound guys get their moment in the sun, but there is definitely a limit. One thing I do miss about those older shows is the flagrant bad taste of the evening gowns. With a few exceptions, you rarely see a lady with that Cher/Geena Davis damn-the-torpedoes flair these days. Everyone tries to be conservative and tasteful, more or less, making me long for the days when the fashions were not internationalized and Nolan Miller and Bob Mackie dominated the scene.

Simon, I wonder how many critics have secretly wanted to say just that? tempusfugit, I wasn't thinking of Weslow's interview, entertaining as it was. Someone else said that eliminating the birth scene emphasized the neoclassic style of the piece and made it less bound to its time and that was a likely reason why Balanchine snipped it. We should remember, also, that he may have had any number of reasons for doing what he did. The late Robert Garis had some interesting things to say on a certain ambivalence Balanchine occasionally showed toward Stravinsky, which he suggested might have emerged in forms such as the radical noodling with "Firebird" and the trimming of "Apollo." According to "Holding On to the Air" Farrell queried him about the cutting of the score of "Apollo" with the observation, "You don't usually cut music like that." He allowed as how he didn't. End of discussion.

One of the devices television shows on their last legs resort to is the bringing in of "name" guest stars like Duchovny and Baryshnikov. In its glory days, the show didn't need that. I thought Petrovsky came off quite well in comparison to Carrie, until the writers began stacking the deck so you had to dislike him, which backfired on occasion. You had no idea what would bring these two together in the first place, and there was zero chemistry between the two actors, which I didn't think was Baryshnikov's fault – Parker's performance has become increasingly self-regarding, and I assume they knew when they hired him that he wasn't exactly Cary Grant with a quip.

Simon G's point about Apollo also crops up in a couple of the recollections in "I Remember Balanchine" where it was suggested by someone, I forget whom, that Balanchine cut the scenes that were more obviously products of their era, although expressionism wasn't mentioned.

He really wasn't bad, but his character existed only as power boyfriend and plot point – he went from being an oversolicitous Mr. Romantic in the early episodes to Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear. Very odd, but they needed to wrap things up fast, I guess. Farrell Fan, thank you for providing another view. I thought the writers had it in for Miranda, myself.

My ex- favorite show concluded not with a bang but a whimper, as it were. Tears, rather -- this was the most lachrymosal 45 minutes I've seen in a series not in the category of "daytime drama." I stuck it out to the bitter end, even though this last mini-season wasn't so much Sex and the City as a made-for-Lifetime soap opera. Baryshnikov, after lavishing all manner of expensive gifts on our heroine, turns neglectful brute and slaps her, causing her to run into the arms of Chris Noth. The End.

The producer of this year's show says there will be no time limit on acceptance speeches this year. More time for the stars to open mouth, insert foot. Goody! http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/2862742/detail.html

The Agon pas de deux as performed by Farrell and Martins can also be seen on a video made in the seventies and released commercially -- "Peter Martins: A Dancer" (recollecting title from memory).

kfw, I think I've already commented on the above, and so I'm now going to refrain from flogging this soon-to-expire-horse and keep to the topic of the budget. Thanks.

carbro is right on the money! Even a fairly cursory reading of Shakespeare, especially (but not only) the comedies, will reveal a number of sexy references. I remember a production of Much Ado About Nothing that was set in the late Victorian era, and there seemed to be no consciousness on the part of the stagers that it was absurd for Victorian ladies and gentlemen to be exchanging these bawdy Elizabethan jokes.

There's no equivalent among Balanchine books to Julie Kavanagh's "Secret Muses" biography of Ashton. Richard Buckle's book has something of what you're looking for, and Moira Shearer's "Balletmaster" although not impressive as a whole, has some shrewd observations. Arlene Croce's long-awaited book is due shortly, but I don't know where her emphasis will lie -- others might know more. Otherwise, I'd check out the books by ex-wives: Tamara Geva, Alexandra Danilova (a sort of wife:)), Zorina, and Tallchief have all weighed in. All of them are discreet, but there is some interesting reading to be done in the (vast) spaces between the lines. Francis Mason's collection of interviews, "I Remember Balanchine" is an excellent source regarding issues both aesthetic and personal.

Well, Brantley gave her a rave in the Times, which can only help. (The original production does seem to have become Verdon's show, however, much to Lilo's annoyance ).

glebb, a belated thank you for the report. I've never seen this on the stage, but the original cast recording is a favorite of mine.

kfw, the idea is not to use arts funding as a political weapon in the first place. It's regrettable that anyone would defend that notion. The ideal of state support for the arts is something I think all sides can agree upon, with negotiations, of course. I wish Gioia the best. He's in a tough spot. Let's hope, at any rate, that the money stays in the budget.

Neither PBS nor NPR have been showered with Congressional largesse recently -- they've been under steady attack, in fact. No worries, there.

Just seconding Leigh's comment on the importance of "snail mail." It does get more attention than e-mail. Write, write, write. I'm amazed, although I should not be, at the matter-of-factness with which the bottom line and the greater drawing power of pop are cited. There was a time when those justifications would have gone unstated -- some other rationale would have been presented to the public as a fig leaf. No more. They assume that no one will care, or that their position will be seen as reasonable. Let's hope they assume wrong. An appalling business.

kfw, this point was made earlier, but many of us fund through our tax dollars projects and programs we find dislikable or offensive. Yet we don't demand, or ask our representatives to demand, that those projects and programs have their funding stripped away and their leadership driven out or intimidated. The politicians who took forty whacks at the NEA can hardly say their views were not heard. As for PBS, NPR, and Justice Thomas, I'd like to reiterate, politely, the need for all of us to keep to the issues at hand without venturing too far afield. It's impossible to discuss funding for the arts without bringing in who is dis/approving the funding, which is how the President and Congress have come into the discussion, but let's try to avoid fanning the partisan flames by bringing in parties not directly related to the topic. Thanks to all for a spirited discussion!

hockeyfan228, it's interesting that some people were taken aback by Linney's big speech -- it seemed to come out of nowhere for them. But if you're watching Linney closely, you can see how she lays the groundwork, as you say. I may as well come out and say it -- I wasn't that impressed with Tim Robbins. I thought he was a little too much, although it was not his fault -- it's how that character is written. My vote would be for Alec Baldwin.

Well put, chauffeur. When I spoke of training and nutrition, I was talking about changes that took place gradually over the course of the last century. I was not thinking of steroids or like substances, an entirely separate issue. I probably should have made a point of that, since the topic has been so much in the news, lately.

That's not how it worked. These people object to arts funding, period, and things like the Finley grant gave them an opening. kfw, it's nice that Justice Thomas can be seen at high profile cultural events, although I was not actually thinking or talking of him. But other areas of artistic endeavor need official encouragement, too, even though some may regard them as outrageous, or not art at all. As an aside, I can't help noticing that those with a "deep seated distrust of government" tend not to object when said evil gov'ment sends pork barrel projects to their state, or federal aid in the case of natural disaster. But never mind.

GWTW, I agree with you about Bacon and Linney. They were about the only two people in "Mystic River" who didn't hit you over the head with all their Great Acting. It wasn't that the others are bad -- you're just terribly aware that you're watching acting. But often it's that kind of performance that the Academy tends to notice. That's one reason I was pleased to see Morton nominated -- they often don't take note of that kind of quiet performance. perky, that way, the Academy has it both ways -- they recognize a good, if showy, performance, and still get to see a Totally Hot Chick hit the aisle in a designer dress to accept her award. (This is much better than casting an older English actress to play Virginia Woolf, or a Kathy Bates to play a character like Aileen Wuornos.) vagansmom, I do think Kidman is a good actress, although not a very warm or sympathetic one. I agree with you, the "new Streep" hype is REALLY annoying. I think others may find it annoying too -- hence no nomination.