dirac

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 (??)

Ed, a very thought-provoking post, but may I suggest that the late Lillian Gish, to take only one example, was a mature, socialized individual? And she was a teenage movie star before turning to the stage in mid-career. Nor was she especially inarticulate. If you want a more recent example, may I suggest Jodie Foster, who seems to be a very sharp lady and who's been acting in movies at least as long as Kidman? I think it's possible to compare film acting to stage acting without having to disparage one or the other. The requirements are different. (Laurence Olivier was a better actor than Marilyn Monroe, who was not a trained actress. However, she is much better in "The Prince and the Showgirl" than he is – less mannered, more vivid, more attuned to the requirements of the camera.) Not long ago, Ned Beatty committed a faux pas and suggested publicly that his co-stars in "Cat On a Hot Tin Roof," Ashley Judd and Jason Patric, were lacking in certain basic skills needed to project a character on stage. I haven't seen the production but I don't disbelieve him. Movie stars are sometimes bad actors, but more commonly they just have a limited range – not the same thing. And Tom Hanks has a solid technique. What does happen with a certain kind of stardom is that the roles a star plays become increasingly limited, frequently through choice, alas. (Hanks is still a good actor, but he's a much less interesting one than he used to be, IMO. Gibson, same thing.) Having said all that, I do suspect that actors with extensive stage training are, on average, better. Those of you who watch "Law and Order" may have noted that the acting of the supporting roles is often exceptionally fine, and it's because many of those actors are hired from the N.Y. stage. You don't see that kind of performing in series shot in L.A., and I don't think that is a coincidence. I agree with Ed about Marcia Gay Harden -- she's always good -- but since she already won Best Supporting for "Pollock" I don't think the odds are in her favor this year.

Well, I'll provide an update for non-watchers, I guess. Bizet's "Jeux d'Enfants" music played in the background of one scene a couple of episodes ago – a reference to Steadfast Tin Soldier, perhaps? Baryshnikov read Parker a poem by Joseph Brodsky, with Brodsky's name on the book clearly visible to the camera. Finally, product placement of which I can enthusiastically approve. Still very hard to understand what these two characters are doing together. The writers seem to be focused on Carrie's problems with Petrovsky, when it seems to me it would make much better sense to have a scene in which Baryshnikov wonders aloud what he's doing with this aging birdbrain with nothing on her mind but his vasectomy and accessorizing, not necessarily in that order. And I really used to like this series....

Cliff, I would suggest we did get the old "novice dancer makes it big" story -- just toned down. Our heroine gets her chance when the chosen lead is injured. Also, her previous affair with a company member breaks up when he cheats on her with another company member. How often have we seen these plot points before? Campbell has a mother who is pushy and calculating. Hello, Center Stage. Antonelli is a colorless variation on the Impresario type that is also familiar. Again, I didn't think the movie was awful -- but it's getting praised for eschewing cliche when the cliches are just back in a slightly modified form. "Dr. T." was indeed awful. It's worth remembering that Altman's movies vary in quality more widely than almost any other major director I can think of -- a movie is not good because his name is on it. That's true of all directors, of course, but it's REALLY true of Altman.

Best Actor is usually the most competitive category, because there are more good roles for men in the movies that are likely to get nominations. I'd like to see Bill Murray get it. I didn't care for Penn in "Mystic River" – he was good, but he's done better. But if the Academy wants to give him a body-of-work award, he certainly deserves it. It was an impossible dream, but I would have liked to see Chiwetel Ejiofor get a nod for "Dirty Pretty Things." I also was hoping that Cruise would be nominated and win for "The Last Samurai" -- not because he was so great, but it would have been fun to see Nicole have to present him with the award. Since this can't happen, my next wish is that Theron wins and gives Adrien Brody a big wet kiss -- only she's still made up as Aileen Wuornos...... Angel2Be, I wouldn't worry about Seabiscuit winning – the movie, not the horse, that is. A very long shot. (I was disappointed that Gary Stevens wasn't nominated as Best Supporting Actor, though – but that's another very competitive category.) Calliope, good to hear from you. Do you really think that ROTK is a lock? I'd like to see it win, not so much for itself on its own but because the trilogy is a major achievement that deserves Academy acknowledgment. On the other hand, it's a fantasy film, and historically the Oscars have ignored fantasies. I think Lost in Translation could still be a contender. I'd hate to see Mystic River win, though. Funny Face, "puppets" might be a bit harsh? Not all actors are very articulate, true. (And the Audrey Hepburns who have their own genuine sense of style are quite rare.) I admit I'm mean spirited enought to enjoy their burblings at the podium, although last year I imagine Virginia Woolf was turning in her grave at Nicole Kidman's incomprehensible acceptance speech. True, they're often overexcited for obvious reasons, but still.

I was very disappointed by the Hamilton book on Clinton, especially since his book on Kennedy ("JFK: Reckless Youth") was/is excellent, with much new and interesting information. This time he seemed to rely too much on secondary sources and seemed to have little insight into his subject, despite all the groping around in Clinton's psychosexual innards. I missed the reference to Paul, so thank you for pointing it out!

BW, he'll be singing a different tune if Return of the King takes best picture. There is a lot of lobbying of Academy members that goes on, although it can backfire if it's too heavy handed.

It's an odd movie, no doubt about it. Her performance has been largely ignored, but I thought Gwyneth Paltrow was excellent in "Sylvia" (a much better movie than I expected, also). The little girl in "Whale Rider" was good, but I have a problem with having adult actresses competing with thirteen year olds.

Nice crack from Gottlieb in his Observer piece on "Double Feature" and the Centennial:

I see by the papers today that "City of God" will be put into wider release, as a direct result of the Oscar nominations. Oscar glitz has its drawbacks, but one good thing about them is that sometimes pictures with no chance of getting lots of exposure get more as a result of receiving nominations.

I haven't seen City of God yet -- I hope to do so. Regarding Triplets versus Finding Nemo, I have to say I thought they were both equally good in their different ways -- a rare case of the popular big studio release being just as good as the smaller scale foreign one. In fact, I preferred Nemo. But either one would be an acceptable winner, I think.

A bare-bones list, no registration required: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040127/...=home&SEC=high1

Link is from the NY Times (registration required). Some surprises here, but I see no genuine threats to ROTK. And Cold Mountain gets the cold shoulder: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/movies/o...27CND-OSCA.html

I agree with pretty much everything Manhattnik says about the dancing above. The opening credits announce "The Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, Gerald Arpino, Artistic Director" – a little unusual, normally you'd just see "The Joffrey Ballet of Chicago" listed with the actors - and it's pretty much All Arpino, All the Time, except for a reference here and there to "Bob." It would have been a nice gesture to include some of "Bob's" choreography, I'd have thought. As for the nondancing bits -- and that's all they are, bits -- Altman deploys his customary techniques to not much purpose. Situations are presented but not resolved, allegedly in imitation of "real life" but Frederick Wiseman's documentary about ABT somehow managed to make real life a lot more interesting than this. The movie isn't awful, you can sit through it and enjoy isolated parts.

I liked her rooftop dance with Tommy Rall, too. She danced better in "Kiss Me Kate" than in any other movie I've seen with her. Miller's style always seemed a trifle robotic to me – it seems to be an occupational hazard with women tap dancers, Eleanor Powell had the same problem to my eye – but having Fosse, Rall, Bobby Van, et al., in the vicinity seems to have been an inspiration. The "From This Moment On" number is interesting for the reasons sandik mentioned – most of it was done by Hermes Pan in traditional big musical style, but Fosse was allowed to set his dance with Haney, and as soon as the two of them slink on you know something new is brewing (it's noticeable even if you don't know Fosse is Fosse).

Balanchine not only thought about reviving it, he had definite plans to do so in the seventies, with Karin von Aroldingen and Bette Midler. A musicians' strike truncated the season and so it never happened. Too bad.

I read that Timmy's coaches and choreographers, past and present, have done everything in their power to help him improve his posture, and I don't doubt it. I fear he's just a hopeless case. He does have a pretty jump when it's working, though. With other skaters, you hold your breath when they go up for the quad, but when Goebel is in good form you can just relax and enjoy the jump -- he tosses it off. This in itself helps his presentation, IMO, although it can't compensate for all the other stuff.

This is a theatrical release from 1978, starring Paul Sorvino as a Breslinesque columnist who falls in love with a dancer, played by Anne Ditchburn of the National Ballet of Canada. It is currently being shown this month on Showtime's family channel and is worth catching if you're curious – it doesn't show up too often, I hadn't seen it for years. The dancer moves into the apartment next door to the columnist, and as it happens she is suffering from something, I forget the name, that inflames her tendons and is affecting her central nervous system and will cause her to fall off the perch if she doesn't stop dancing and let the doctor operate pronto, but she is dancing the lead for the company's forthcoming debut at Lincoln Center, etc., etc. The ballerina has extended conversations with her parakeet, whose name is Orville Wright. It's that kind of flick. Movies like this can be a lot of fun if they work, which this one doesn't. There are some nice shots of the city, however. Be warned that "Slow Dancing in the Big City" is pretty awful -- although it exerts a weird fascination for this viewer-- so don't expect much. It was directed by John G. Avildsen, fresh from "Rocky," but he was not to enjoy the same success as with his previous outing, to put it mildly; this one bombed and for good reason. Sorvino and Ditchburn are an unexpected pairing, not in itself a bad thing, but it doesn't pay off here. Sorvino's constant New York yak-yak is intended to be charming but comes off as annoying, and he has weight issues that require him to stay in a trench coat for most of the movie. (I say this with regret, as he's a favorite of mine.) Ditchburn has a tiny affected voice and a tiny affected pout, but although she's no actress I'm not sure I don't prefer her to Neve Campbell – at least she's a real dancer, and I am an advocate of casting dancers as dancers even if they're not going to win any Oscars. The big ballet is a modern/ballet fusion called "Forest Dreams" choreographed by Robert North to a score by Bill Conti, and it's not good but not a total disaster. Ditchburn has a solo of her own composition on the apartment rooftop, and does a frantic barre to Carole King's "I Feel the Earth Move" in her boyfriend's ritzy apartment. Hector Jaime Mercado is the ballet's male lead, and I spotted Helene Alexopoulos in the rehearsal scenes. Florence Fitzgerald is listed in the cast.

Tell me about it, hockeyfan 228. It was the glory days of Wide World of Sports and Jim McKay, and not only was there not much skating, but what you did get was often chopped up -- the middle of programs, but not the beginning or the end. You saw an itty bitty clip of Orser and someone would say, "That was a promising young Canadian, Brian Orser! We'll be seeing a lot more of Brian!" Uhhh...could we see more of him, like, now, fellas? Just a little bit? Please? As for the Sorrows of Janet, those are the breaks.