dirac

I haven't seen "Elizabeth R" in a long time, but if I recall correctly it also has the dubiously documented bit where Elizabeth, upon hearing of the birth of the future King James, wails in front of her entire court that she is but a barren stock. Highly unlikely. It was a very enjoyable series, though.

I'm going to go for the obvious and choose "Rubies." It's cool. I admire "Emeralds," although I do see why audience enthusiasm for it tends to be muted. It can seem to be a little vague, in a where-is-all-this-heading kind of way. I wonder if it might be better on a smaller stage? glebb, as an aside, what was Mazzo like in "Diamonds"?

Hee, hee! Continuing to veer away from the topic, talk of suitable partners reminds me of Mary Queen of Scots, who was just six feet and definitely the tallest one in her class. Really tall women confront difficulties today, but imagine the situation for poor Mary in that vertically challenged era. I'm sure one reason she was attracted to the horrid Darnley was the fact that he was just about the only man in the kingdom tall enough to partner her, and like Elizabeth she was a great one for the dancing. There's a cute story about Elizabeth and the Scottish ambassador which I hope is true. She was questioning him about his mistress, and the Queen asked him if it was correct that Mary was quite tall, much taller than she. He cautiously allowed how this was so, and she said, "Then she is too high, for I myself am neither too high nor too low." So there.

I kind of doubt that Elizabeth really enjoyed the enterprising lord's forays into her bedroom. (Goodness only knows what the queen dowager thought.) What a household. So much for staying on topic --

I'm inclined to agree with kfw, there can be too much of a good thing. I do tend to find programs that are top-heavy with pas de deux, even terrific pas de deux, a little overwhelming. Let us hope Miss F. proves me wrong on this occasion.

Modern art has entered the mainstream today to a greater extent than we have seen in previous generations, and certain premises – for example, that art is often difficult, obscure, or even outrageous – are generally accepted. The downside of this is that certain kinds of charlatanism flourish that might have found less fertile soil in an earlier time (which was itself hospitable to different kinds of charlatanism). I think it's possible to say these things without taking the tone this writer does. She has no way of knowing what "shrines" the young people standing in line are worshipping at, and it's rather presumptuous of her to say that she does, IMO. I'm not saying some of the points she makes can't be made – but she does not make them well.

Catherine Howard had other fish to fry. But then she didn't last too long either, poor thing. I suspect Elizabeth may have been relieved to be away from court, all things considered.

I believe Mel is thinking of Katherine Champernowne, Elizabeth's beloved Kat Ashley.

I'm also very grateful for his biographies -- he was around at the right time, and was able to talk to so many crucial people before it was too late.

I quite enjoyed the quote from her in "Balanchine's Ballerinas," where she's telling Tracy why her technique differed from that of Farrell: "I had more elevation. She never had elevation," she explained, helpfully. I've only seen her on the Dance in America tapes, and she does seem to look best in the roles that were custom-built for her. I was disappointed with the "Emeralds" pas de deux with Sean Lavery (and Mimi Paul looks so beautiful in the photographs). I also remember wondering, when I first saw the "Prodigal Son," why Balanchine had cast Giselle's mom as the Siren. She was certainly chilling, but again, she just doesn't look right; the choreography and the costume need a lady with very long stems. I did like her in Davidsbundlertanze very much; there are other important roles in that one, but Balanchine gave her a little extra to carry, and she does it beautifully.

Funny Face, I actually thought Kelly was good in MM, considering he was, IMO, miscast (and too old). It's not ethnicity so much as type. I understand both Kelly and Minnelli wanted very much to do Brigadoon on location, but the studio said no.

Please note the following is Just My Opinion and I mean to impugn no one's taste, but An American in Paris is one of my least favorite musicals. I can fully understand how appealing the movie must have been at the time, but I have to say the only number that really stands up for me is Georges Guétary's charming "Stairway to Paradise." Otherwise, well it looks good, and there's Leslie Caron in all her youthful bucktoothed charm. I find the dancing especially disappointing. The balletic style is not Kelly's strong suit, and the choreography in the big Yes, Virginia, Another Dream Ballet is hardly more than posing. It's also worth noting that the big romantic duet has little impact see also "Singin' in the Rain." (Kelly is sexy but not romantic. I've always loved him best in his solos, and he is by nature primarily a hoofer and not a ballroom or balletic dancer.) Funny Face, thank you for pointing out that Kelly was often persuasive in straight roles. I happen to query the idea of casting someone so very Irish as Noel Airman (even in a version of the book that completely eliminated ANY Jewish references!!!), but he was good elsewhere. I quite enjoyed his d'Artagnan, too.

I'd be curious to see it, too, but when even the admirers of a ballet make it sound more like a punishing military exercise than an edifying evening at the theatre, you do have to wonder.

I find his macho a trifle pushy at times, candidly, but it may be just me. "For Me and My Gal" was indeed his first film. The little scene of the two of them singing the title song together is one of my all-time favorite movie moments. I always thought Garland and Kelly were underrated as a screen team --you can also see them in "The Pirate" and "Summer Stock." I sometimes find Kelly a little overbearing, but you rarely see this tendency when he's with her. It's not only that he defers to Garland as the bigger star, but his admiration and respect for her come through clearly. It's too bad that circumstances prevented their doing more movies together.

I wish them the best, although I must say that's one of the dumber records I can recall. (However, it's been a long time since I browsed through one of the Guinness editions, so I'm sure there are even more absurd ones out there.) I'm also not sure I'd start off a ballet newbie with a program featuring Barocco and Four Ts.......

Thank you for getting us back on track. This thread did venture far afield, didn't it? What an odd feature to wind up in a scandal sheet, or anywhere else for that matter. I'd think Nerina had a right to put her cats anywhere she wished. (My own cats don't have a room of their own, but that's because they regard the entire place as theirs.) Going back off topic for a moment, I've had two copies of Balanchine's Ballerinas fall apart on me, in addition to one I found in a library that split in the exact same places. The book is just not well made -- so don't spend a fortune on your copy.

And showing ample reason why her movie career didn't get that far, alas.

My hunch is that this film is a short feature documentary -- Turner Classic Movies shows a lot of those. These usually wind up getting repeated eventually, so with luck it will pop up again.

I quite understand, and may I suggest you write a tartly worded letter to the editor? It might be worth reminding them that the Style section readers who follow cultural matters as well as or instead of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous need some attention, too.

I remember Lynn Swann very well. However, I'm not the person here who could comment most intelligently on this issue. Mel, your thoughts?

I wouldn't call the recent movies a comeback, exactly. Moulin Rouge and Chicago, the most frequently cited examples in this regard, featured stars with very limited background in musicals and even more limited singing and dancing skills. The scores were based on old songs, not new ones, never a good sign. I think we'll always see a few movies featuring dance from time to time but that isn't the same as a true revival of dance in film, which I don't expect to see. It's encouraging that they are trying another "Dirty Dancing," which was a real dance movie. Emile Ardolino is gone, however, and there aren't that many truly dance-minded directors around these days. (Don't talk to me about Rob Marshall, PLEEEZE.)

Well, a television special would take a little time to produce, but Hines was just not that big of a star -- he wouldn't rate the coverage received by the demise of a Hepburn or a Hope, or of Steve McQueen when he died untimely about twenty years ago. It's too bad, but there it is. Baryshnikov should get a big sendoff when he joins the choir invisible, but I can't think of another living dancer who'll get Major Media Notice. I thought the Post's obit was pretty good, actually. The New York Times had an appreciation by Sally Sommer in addition to the obituary, but the Times' cultural coverage tends to be more intensive.

Thank you for this, Funny Face. At least the Russians think figure skating is a big deal. As the article notes, they certainly have an impressive array of world champions to showcase. I see the Collins tentacles are now moving toward the Far East, also.

It's an interesting book, but the online prices mentioned seem frightfully high. I'd definitely look around at any local bookstores that sell used copies. I've seen used copies on sale for far less than that -- after seeing that $140 quote I'm rather sorry I didn't nab it, although it wasn't a book I was sweating to own.

Amy, I'm afraid I don't know -- I didn't see him, alas. I hope someone who did chips in. I imagine Smuin didn't put him in Swan Lake. The two worked together on several occasions -- Smuin did Hines' revue, "Sophisticated Ladies."