dirac

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.

One bad review alone probably wouldn't. As with the other poll regarding raves, for me it depends very much on who is doing the reviewing. If the reviews are uniformly bad, however, then that usually does indicate a dyed-in-the-wool turkey.

perky, they don't have to be dead already. We don't intend to put a hex on anyone, of course. "I'm in You: Homage to Peter Frampton" "MacArthur Park: a Tribute to Donna Summer" Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOO......

The healthiest attitude in the world won't provide you with good job offers. Meryl Streep has actually gone on the record several times about the dearth of good leading roles for older women. Jack Nicholson once remarked that it wasn't Hollywood's attitude, but the actresses' – a "self-fulfilling prophecy" was his term. Streep responded, gently, that Nicholson wouldn't know or understand – he has never experienced the problem himself. Returning to the topic, it would be nice to see Keaton win, although in all honesty I think the one Oscar she already has reflects her actual gifts as an actress – two's a bit much for her, one is plenty. Of the women who did get nominated, I'm rooting for Samantha Morton.

Funny Face, I wasn't referring so much to the attitudes taken by the actresses themselves so much as the difficult time they have finding good roles after A Certain Age. The pressure on actresses is so great that I don't wonder they resort to having a little work done. We haven't seen much of the ladies you mention recently, except for Streep, and her last nomination was for playing a supporting role to Cage.

Croce was hardest on "Diamonds" when the ballet was new -- that was when she suggested it wasn't so much a homage to Petipa as a homage to Gorsky. I think the piece tempusfugit mentions was much later -- the "triptych" article. hockeyfan228 has a point – if Balanchine could compose top-drawer choreography only to top-drawer music, he never would have gone near most of Tchaikovsky. I don't recall Croce ever saying anything like that, offhand. (She did comment on Ashton's regular use of inferior scores, but judging from the context I don't think she intended it quite as a compliment.)

perky, maybe Nicole is just trying to make hay while the sun shines. In a few years she'll be pushing forty and it gets much tougher for top actresses then. You don't see other actresses as often, but it may not be by their choice – they don't get the offers. (If she'd gotten nominated this year, it would have been for the third year in a row – a record.)

I thought "Thirteen" was an updated version of those Fifties What Is Happening To Our Youth flicks, with Evan Rachel taking the place of another Wood, Natalie. Didn't take it that seriously. I don't know that I'd call Kidman vapid, although her performance in "Cold Mountain" comes pretty close to that description. Fortunately she didn't get nominated for it.

I've never thought Cruise was a bad actor, but he surprised Rice and a lot of other people in "Vampire" – many expected him to be bad, and he carried the movie. I think that star versus actor can be a useful device for comparing and contrasting if used carefully. One example that springs to mind is that of Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward, who are married and have appeared frequently together, making comparisons easier. Much as I love him, it must be said that for much of his career Newman just wasn't a very good actor – he was okay but no Brando, and in his youth he was often downright bad. I've never seen a bad performance from his missus, and in their films together she outclasses him regularly, but she's never had quite the charm and charisma to make her a star on her husband's level. I rather liked "Malice" myself. It has great cinematography by the late lamented Gordon Willis, and Alec Baldwin is terrific. Kidman is an interesting case. She's good, no question, but overrated these days.

As the boomers continue slouching toward Retirement and Beyond, it occurred to me that "Within You Without You" might only be the tip of the iceberg. Why stop at George Harrison? There are still many prominent rockers out there worthy of tributes from classical companies when they eventually buy the farm. For the benefit of enterprising artistic directors everywhere, may I suggest that Ballet Alerters begin the process by supplying them with a few prospective ballet titles, using song names or lyrics from the appropriate musician and the "[Title]: A Tribute to …..] format. I'm thinking along the following lines: "Metal Machine Music: A Tribute to Lou Reed" "'She's Under My Thumb'": A Tribute to Mick Jagger" "Maybe I'm Amazed, Or Maybe I'm Not: A Tribute to Paul McCartney" "He Was Only In It For the Money: A Tribute to Frank Zappa" I'm sure you can do better than I can off the top of my head. Yes, I noodled with Paul's lyric just a bit. And Frank is already gone. Carry on.

I forgot to mention the bravos. There were those, too.

What is likely to happen is that cultural reactionaries (sorry, I refuse to use the honorable word "conservative" in this connection) will cut the NEA funding from a budget that is already badly inflated. The arts funding is miniscule in itself and even in combination with many other cuts will be meaningless to the overall numbers, but that is not likely to stop them. There's nothing wrong, I suppose, with avoiding any potential political pitfalls and aiming the money at things like Shakespeare appreciation and symphony orchestras, but as Leigh noted, the funding of R&D type work has been one of the most useful applications of NEA seed money. Private money often follows public money, and the NEA grant can serve as a signpost saying, "It's okay to give money to these guys." No, not all the work that gets funded succeeds, or is even very good. Not all of the scientific work receiving funding is successful, or is even very good. Ditto for weapons systems, rocket launches, tax breaks for business that amount to funding, etc. The arts also have the right to fail. Selah. Lest any of the foregoing be branded anti-GOP, let me add that there are many Republicans who favor funding for the arts -- hence the Administration's desire to have it both ways by requesting the raise, which they know perfectly well is likely to be cut. And the cultural reactionaries have included Democrats. As an aside, I was very sad, and angry, to hear that maintenance for the Hubble telescope, a useful and cost-effective device, will be phased out. Disastrous and dumb.

In the last few months I've attended a couple of performances that received standing ovations at the end of the evening. I didn't think they rated standing Os, but almost everyone else did. They weren't bad performances, mind -- just not all THAT great. My question is: if a performance you think was fine but not necessarily worthy of an ovation gets one, do you stand up as well, or do you remain seated? On the first occasion, I stood up in order to see the dancers take their calls; on the second, I thought, the hell with it, if I can't see the calls sitting I'll leave (I was three seats from the aisle.) I excused myself politely but got a very dirty look from a lady as I crept past her. I didn't want to be rude, but I don't see the point of springing up like a marionette just to be with the crowd. Do others feel this way, or am I attaching too much significance to standing up?

Calliope, in re Streisand, there was a gossip item today that said some Academy members may vote for Coppola as Best Director as a sort of affirmative action demonstration that the snubbing of Streisand for "Yentl" was personal and not against women generally. I'm inclined to disagree – I don't think dislike of Streisand would be so intense if she were a man. ("Yentl" wasn't a great movie by any means, but it was at least as good as Costner's "Dances with Wolves" or Gibson's "Braveheart," IMO.) So maybe Coppola will beat out Peter Jackson because she's a woman (??)