dirac

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.

Thanks for the report, hockeyfan228. I'd heard Plushenko had crashed and burned, but not the gory details.

While I admire the intensity of feelings on this matter (and thank you Hal, for starting the discussion), I'd like to remind everyone to take it easy. No one's out of line yet and I'm all in favor of spirited, even sharp, give and take, but just in case. Also, let's try to avoid the use of derogatory slang -- even if we are deploring the attitudes behind the words. I agree with you, Hal, that the question of sexual orientation is a definite part of "wimp factor" perceptions. However, I believe that's changing, slowly. I hope so, anyway. My own feeling is that dancers (in general do) look better today. Baseball players (in general) do also, because of advances in training and nutrition. Hans is quite right to say that in some respects they are not more technically accomplished than earlier generations. In other respects they may be, and it does no harm to say so, as long as no one is implying that Pavlova couldn't dance, etc.

Fred Astaire had a mean golf swing also, as he demonstrates in the stunning "golf dance" in "Carefree." Not that I actually regard golf as a sport. Attempts to establish detente between ballet and sport can't hurt, as long as the distinctions Watermill makes remain clear. I think that people's minds can be changed regarding what we might call "the wimp factor" with the right kind of persuasion and education. Lynn Swann's "Eastern team" was the Steelers. For examples of his gorgeous style, check out footage of Super Bowl X on ESPN Classics and elsewhere.

Yes, they fund the public schools, but the point is that they are state-sponsored gambling in addition to being a sort of invisible tax, and the regular funding that schools would normally receive is then cut, when the point of such lotteries was that they were supposed to be funding over and above such aid, not a replacement of it.

I love the Ramones idea, Hans. "He Hit Me (And It Felt Like a Kiss): an Evening with Phil Spector" Sorry. Extremely poor taste.

Well, he was very young and just getting started when he appeared in "Fast Times" -- which is actually a good movie, I think, and Penn is wonderful in it. Although I wasn't that impressed with his work in "Mystic River" for a few reasons, but he's definitely entitled to one of those body-of-work Oscars they give once in awhile. He's stupendous in "Casualties of War," which is the movie I'd recommend to anyone wondering what the Sean Penn fuss is about.

State-sponsored lotteries are truly diabolical devices – as the term "poor man's tax" indicates, they soak the poor in disproportionate numbers. In California, they assured voters that lottery money would go towards education funding, but other funds for education would not be cut. Guess what happened. I quite agree that organizations benefiting from public money should do some things aimed for the public good. My own high school was blue-collar and not very rich, but in so far as funding permitted, we were certainly exposed to the arts, primarily through the efforts of dedicated teachers. My father is a retired construction worker who enjoys attending concerts and other "high art" events.. Fortunately, no one ever told him that art is only for the educated and assorted stumblers, or I imagine he would never have dared to go in the first place.

Well, Jude Law thinks Penn should get it: http://www.salon.com/ent/wire/2004/02/12/jude/index.html

We continue to stray off topic (although I admit I started it!), but again, these ladies are under tremendous pressure. Ryan's not behaving very rationally these days, but her career is in a serious downturn. We might feel a little panicky, too. (Her lips do look frightful, though!) Also, this is the first non-Mommy role Keaton has had in years. She may be happy playing second fiddle to Steve Martin in Father of the Bride movies, but perhaps others may wish to avoid that fate for as long as possible? I read that odds are narrowing on Naomi Watts to win. Did anyone see 21 Grams? I confess I took pains not to............

"The Company" was playing in several locations in my vicinity, but that's an exception, I'm sure. Altman's track record, which has always been spotty, has been even spottier in recent years, and this is not one of his major efforts. It's actually customary for a movie like this one not to have a wide release -- often a smaller scale effort leads to much better things -- if the movie gets great reviews and has good word-of-mouth, or a few Oscar nominations. The Company has gotten okay reviews and and mediocre word-of-mouth. (I for one was bored stiff, and and I don't think I was alone out there.) If I were Sony, I wouldn't waste a lot of dough on it either. Not everyone perceives this as Neve's labor of love, but more as Neve's ego trip. (I'm not saying I'm one of the latter.) However, maybe next time Campbell will forgo co-screenwriting duties and hire someone who can write. I don't mean to sound too harsh, but it's quite true that ballet will probably take the hit for this movie not doing well, when ballet is hardly to blame.

I'd add to Mel's gloss on the "pan rave" that many critics, I regret to say, deliberately put in such adjectives so that they can be extracted from an otherwise indifferent review. There is such a thing as constructive negative criticism. Also, remember that performers are voluntarily going out there to receive our praise (and our hard-earned dough) for their efforts, in additional to any larger artistic goals. This gives us certain rights, such as to withhold said praise and explain why.

Depends on the reviewer, very much so. Also whether the review appears in a weekly, daily, or monthly.