dirac

The broadcast has not been released commercially. It's too bad, although I thought at the time that both Serenade (what a dream cast, though!) and Western Symphony were not ideal choices for television. However, I'll take what crumbs I can get.

Thanks for the link! I suspect that the sports reference is another attempt to reach out to a "broader audience". Yes, ballet is not sport, although as one with a foot in both camps, I sometimes think balletomanes have more in common with sports fans than either side cares to admit.

Mel, while agreeing with you on the editorial slant of the Independent, I wonder if this article was necessarily reflective of that?. The English are always eager for bad news about the French, but it's not as if ballet school is a major foreign policy issue. It's off topic, but I'd also suggest that, while the Post is basically a Crazed-Gunman-Slays-Straphanging-Six type of operation, it also aspires to another kind of readership, for which it is more of a guilty pleasure than a primary supplier of news. Parts of the Business section, for example, are clearly aimed at higher tax brackets, and I think that's why Barnes has a perch there in the first place. The slant of the paper is definitely reactionary – it's a RupertRag, after all………

I agree, BalletNut, it's unfortunate that he's drawn large conclusions from one instance. Again, I never meant to imply that YOU were contemptuous, only that this issue seems to draw, as you note, extreme responses from both sides. Someone will say, All ballet is awful/sexist/torture, and someone else will respond with No, it's wonderfully perfect and you don't know what you're talking about. There is a middle ground!

I'd say that it's not my impression that ballet is under constant attack, and there's no need to respond intemperately or contemptuously (I do not suggest you're doing that, BalletNut) to naïve observers, or even some less naïve observers, who may view some aspects of the ballet world in a negative light. Like everything else, it's not perfect. I don't see anything wrong with what he's written. They're his impressions, you can take them or leave them, and it's not as if he's calling for government investigation. He's expressing his concerns as a loving and responsible parent.

You don't have to go to the Sahara to know what it's like.

The Ballet Review article "reads" the ballet chiefly in terms of Balanchine's demise, viewing it as a farewell to ballet, beloved figures in Balanchine's life, and basically everything else. There are seveal interesting points -- suggesting, for example, that the Quill Guys are kin to the top hatted figures familiar at funerals in times gone by, and are harbingers of death, not necessarily symbolic of critics attacking Schumann's work. The piece also suggests that the character originally danced by von Aroldingen is a "companion" –not necessarily a wife or representation of Clara Schumann. I thought the author was straining a bit for originality, but it's definitely worth a read. (It also views this ballet as Balanchine's last great work, which statement admirers of "Mozartiana" might find worth debating.)

Dancers are performers like any others. I think it's accepted that when you write a book (okay, not if you're Thomas Pynchon), do a film or play, or anything else for which public attention is desirable, not to say essential, you do press.

It's not as if Gottlieb and Martins came to a parting of the ways, and then suddenly Gottlieb began spewing nonstop venom for the next decade or so. Gottlieb wrote a long and temperate piece for Vanity Fair about the history of NYCB a few years back, for example, that concluded on a cautiously positive note, praising recent performances and new dancers that he liked. I don't agree that Gottlieb's writing on NYCB at present is too emotional – no more emotional than Croce's before she ceased regular publication. After all, they are writing about an institution that provided them with some of the supreme aesthetic experiences of a lifetime. They may be right or wrong about the possibility of irreversible decline, but I wouldn't expect them to be "objective" about it. Also, Gottlieb has been more than upfront about his past with NYCB. He hasn't just mentioned it once in passing – he offers reminders at regular intervals. The Observer is a small, scrappy weekly and I'm sure the editors have no problem with Gottlieb's tone. Gottlieb's views are well known and I kind of doubt the company would bother to complain. Back to the topic. You can't make many generalities about this. There are too many potential case examples with their own special circumstances. But I agree with the absolutists who say the company has no voice in such matters and should try to exert none, not directly in any case. You can write a letter to the editor and complain. It's a free country. But almost anything else is out of bounds. (And in a paper with any integrity, would result in the opposite of the desired effect.)

I agree with Leigh's inferences. However, I don't think boosterism is wrong, per se, or that the writers are necessarily bumpkins who are easily pleased. You don't want to appear to be condescending, or hurt a company that's struggling just to get by. There's nothing wrong with taking such things into account. I thought this was a fair and honest review, but I'm not sure if it would be helpful to see a variation on it every week. And you certainly wouldn't want someone who was constantly implying "We'll, I've seen Paree, and this isn't it." Of course, it's not. Under different circumstances, however, I do think boosterism can be damaging, not so much in the smaller cities and towns as in the larger cities, where the paper can afford more than one critic and the company is strong enough to take a little criticism – and doesn't get it.

katharine may have a point. I doubt if Seymour would be laughed off the stage, but haven't weight requirements become more stringent for women since then? (And not just in ballet. Kate Winslet is one of the great beauties of the screen by any standard, and she's still getting airbrushed for magazine covers and made fun of as a porko.) Seymour wasn't fat by any means, but she had a lot more meat on her bones than we see today.

Thanks very much for the report. I had planned to watch it but became distracted by Kim Clijsters' spectacular third set meltdown on ESPN. Perlman's willingness to spread the attention around to the kids is indeed admirable!

Despite the brilliance of individuals, which Manhattnik so emphatically points out, it does seem to be a time of relative eclipse for ballerinas. I don't know that it's the ballerinas' fault, however.

I would add that Stalin was also a ballet enthusiast, in his fashion – that is, if I wanted to reward the harangue that began this thread with a sensible response, which I don't.

Very interesting point, diane. Early exposure can make a big difference.

I've learned more about skating from Button's commentary than anyone else's. I don't always agree with him, but that's because I know more (and much of I wouldn't know if not for him!) He has his quirks, but most of the time they don't bother me and like vagansmom I greet them as old friends. However, repeatedly informing an audience of millions that a skater -- any skater – has perfect technique when it's clear to even an inexpert eye like mine that there are problems – is a bit much.

Now, now. We should be encouraging Lara. Sorry I missed it. She is carrying on the great tradition of Cher and Geena Davis, which involves the wearing of flamboyantly tasteless gowns to the Oscars and the GGs. Nowadays we hardly ever see such things, although as noted Bjork made an important contribution to the canon at the last Oscars. Yes, we see bad, we see tasteless, but not on the truly spectacular heights that used to be reached regularly. I think the bad press on such matters is worse than it used to be, and the actresses are leery. It's too bad. Old Fashioned, I agree with you on the Nicholson thing. It's too gross for words. This year, I'm also looking forward to the Botox Effect, displayed most strikingly by Halle Berry last year when she had her nervous breakdown en route to the podium. Every part of her face collapsed save for her forehead, which was oddly impervious to her emotional turbulence.

As noted, the ladies were the story, in spite of the technical stagnation on the distaff side, which Tim Goebel did not fail to note to the press. I've always liked Michael Weiss, as I noted on another thread somewhere. When not coming on as Macho Man, he has shown flair, musicality, deep edges, and other old fashioned virtues. He just has trouble coming up with the goods when it counts. Here he did the figure skating equivalent of Winning Ugly; not at his best himself, he needed Goebel to bomb, and Goebel did; he needed someone to beat Goebel, and Ryan Jahnke -- nice tano lutz, Ryan -- did that. Well, like Timmy or not, he's the only American guy who can give the Russians a game at the moment, so the best of luck to him. I'll also note that his jumps are beautiful as well as prodigious -- when he's on, they have a wonderful airy ease, and he seems to land on a down pillow. We didn't see this Sunday, alas. I am pleased to report, after complaining about Kwan's recent performances, that she made me eat crow and I gobbled it down as if it had been caviar. When she's In the Zone, it's as if she's absorbed the music and it's carrying her along on a current; she seems to be making it up as she goes and the jumps have a fluid inevitability -- they're not big and she frequently loses speed coming out of them, which makes the triple-triple combinations so tricky for her, I think -- but she just sort of rises out of the ice and back down again. The ABC commentators were almost grudging in their admiration -- they're dying to crown Cohen as the new ice princess, but Kwan clearly has other ideas. Hughes was underestimated again, and again she defied the naysayers, including Peggy Fleming, who wound up with egg on her face after plumping heavily for Cohen. Good for you, Sarah. I'm afraid Dick Button is losing it. I admire many things about Cohen's skating, but she is not technical perfection out there and to say so, repeatedly, is a tad misleading. I hope she can get it together -- that was not good to look at. McDonough is often proficient but mechanical, which may be what the judges slapped her wrist for. (I often feel that if I tapped her, she would go ping.) Jennifer Kirk's skating, for me, is pretty but without force. I have more to say, but don't want to take over the discussion. The big story for me was Ye Bin Mok, but more of that later.

Thank you for that wonderful report! Hughes has indeed been injured, and during a year with many other distractions for her. It's hardly surprising, and I think it would certainly be justified, for that to be taken into consideration.

The opinion for the majority: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/a...ves/01-618o.pdf Dissenting. Justice Breyer: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/a...es/01-618d1.pdf and Justice Stevens: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/a...ves/01-618d.pdf

Associated Press report surveying the field for the European championships: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...rts%2Dheadlines

Vicki Michaelis reports on the prospects for Cohen and Weiss; Belbin and Agosto challenge Lang and Tchernyshev. From USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2003011...16/4784109s.htm

Good news for copyright holders in the Supreme Court's decision. Report from the New York Law Journal: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1042568656706

"cookie-cutter" has a negative connotation that may not be exactly what we want here, perhaps. I suspect that physiques were once more diverse because the talent pool was not as extensive then as now?

Not I, unfortunately, but I do hope we'll be receiving your eyewitness reports!