dirac

It isn't just ballet. You see it in sport, too, and although it happens with both sexes the practice seems to be slightly more common when referring to women than men. Sometimes it's an efficient way of distinguishing between siblings, so you refer to Venus and Serena rather than to Williams. I find myself doing it, although I try to avoid it because it's an assertion of false intimacy peculiar to fandom and where women are concerned there can be a wee bit of condescension involved, which, I suspect, is why Ella Fitzgerald tended to bristle at the too-familiar "Ella" -- that's Miss Fitzgerald to you, buddy. With certain pop figures, it's almost customary -- I've read articles on The Beatles, in perfectly serious publications, that referred to them throughout by their first names. I think it's fundamentally harmless, unless fan enthusiasm goes over the edge into actual obsession --there's a connection, albeit a very distant one, between referring to Lennon as John, thinking you know John, and finally going over the edge and being convinced you are John and need to get rid of the false one, the one with his picture in the papers. Of course, it can also be a form of honorific, the way Elvis is, well, Elvis. For opera fans, at least some, there's only one Maria, and only one Renata (forget about it, Mme. Scotto).

I voted for the newbie, being in agreement with casloan and Farrell Fan that it's more of a rarity to see a stunning debut than to see an established dancer (unless there's an extenuating circumstance, such as, the established dancer is retiring at the end of the season). As for the Sean Connery analogy -- well, I've loved him for years, but couldn't control a certain queasiness watching him flirt with Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Entrapment." I'm afraid even the best of us eventually pass our expiration dates.

I voted for the newbie, being in agreement with casloan and Farrell Fan that it's more of a rarity to see a stunning debut than to see an established dancer (unless there's an extenuating circumstance, such as, the established dancer is retiring at the end of the season). As for the Sean Connery analogy -- well, I've loved him for years, but couldn't control a certain queasiness watching him flirt with Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Entrapment." I'm afraid even the best of us eventually pass our expiration dates.

I think it's fine if the artist wants to tell us what he thinks his work means; we don't have to agree with him, and it can be thought provoking. And I appreciate that he's taking the risk of people saying, Well, I don't see that in this ballet at all, so obviously it hasn't succeeded. I can remember reading the letters of Wallace Stevens, in which he provides explications of some famous poems, and thinking, Did I read what he he was writing? It didn't cause me to do a wholesale revision of my own views, or make me feel locked in to his interpretation. Of course, other people may react differently. Leigh, I didn't think that Schiff was making a blanket generalization about women characters created by gay men but speculating (and note the cautious "may have") as to the possibility that a variation on the Albertine strategy was being employed in that particular instance (not that I agree with him).

I think it's fine if the artist wants to tell us what he thinks his work means; we don't have to agree with him, and it can be thought provoking. And I appreciate that he's taking the risk of people saying, Well, I don't see that in this ballet at all, so obviously it hasn't succeeded. I can remember reading the letters of Wallace Stevens, in which he provides explications of some famous poems, and thinking, Did I read what he he was writing? It didn't cause me to do a wholesale revision of my own views, or make me feel locked in to his interpretation. Of course, other people may react differently. Leigh, I didn't think that Schiff was making a blanket generalization about women characters created by gay men but speculating (and note the cautious "may have") as to the possibility that a variation on the Albertine strategy was being employed in that particular instance (not that I agree with him).

Sounds okay to me.

Sounds okay to me.

The Journal is also reacting to readership issues similar to that faced by the Times; increased arts coverage may not seem like a commercial move, but the WSJ is trying to pull in a wider audience than its traditional white-older-guy reader profile. So the heftier arts and feature coverage is part of an attempt to attract readers who are younger and female, and not necessarily business subscribers. Not that they aren't to be applauded for the excellent coverage, but the motive isn't entirely altruistic.

The Journal is also reacting to readership issues similar to that faced by the Times; increased arts coverage may not seem like a commercial move, but the WSJ is trying to pull in a wider audience than its traditional white-older-guy reader profile. So the heftier arts and feature coverage is part of an attempt to attract readers who are younger and female, and not necessarily business subscribers. Not that they aren't to be applauded for the excellent coverage, but the motive isn't entirely altruistic.

I also remember a time when she seemed like a breath of fresh air. Sic transit.......

Thanks for this link, Calliope. It's interesting that Gumbel praises the "Watching Movies with..." series, which Raines is discontinuing on the grounds that they're too close to puff pieces for the movie people, not serious enough. And that "The Talented Mr. Ripley" piece is Gumbel's idea of high cultural coverage? I'm with Farrell Fan on the wording of the Britney Spears quote -- it sounds just a little too pat. Raines just arrived as executive editor, he's shaking things up, people are going to get unhappy and leak to other papers about it. The Times is confronting a declining and aging readership, as are all newspapers, and it may be trying to reach beyond the older upscale types who are reading those articles about the Peking Opera and porcelain. That's not a dishonorable objective, if that is in fact the case. Obviously I've no desire to read more about Britney Spears, but I don't want to say that pop culture is beyond the pale or not worthy of equal time. Gumbel complains about Dowd and Rich; does anyone but me recall the days when the Times' editorial page was the place where senile executive editors went to babble away their dotage? (The far from senile Joseph Lelyveld is currently gracing the pages of The New York Review of Books, I'm pleased to note.) Does he want to bring back the golden days of Flora Lewis, the aging Reston, and the ineffable A.M. Rosenthal? Pleeze. Rockwell notes that he was once a rock critic. If I recall correctly from the Fong-Torres/Bangs/Marsh/Marcus era, the other rock critics regarded him as pretty much of a joke. Calliope, if the Times adds one more new section, I've had it. I just received a letter with my Sunday Times, explaining that they are adding even more feature-type sections on this day and that day. I think this just means more full color photographs of focaccia, arugula salad, and interior decor -- that is, advertiser friendly features. Well, even the Times has to live, I guess.

Thanks for this link, Calliope. It's interesting that Gumbel praises the "Watching Movies with..." series, which Raines is discontinuing on the grounds that they're too close to puff pieces for the movie people, not serious enough. And that "The Talented Mr. Ripley" piece is Gumbel's idea of high cultural coverage? I'm with Farrell Fan on the wording of the Britney Spears quote -- it sounds just a little too pat. Raines just arrived as executive editor, he's shaking things up, people are going to get unhappy and leak to other papers about it. The Times is confronting a declining and aging readership, as are all newspapers, and it may be trying to reach beyond the older upscale types who are reading those articles about the Peking Opera and porcelain. That's not a dishonorable objective, if that is in fact the case. Obviously I've no desire to read more about Britney Spears, but I don't want to say that pop culture is beyond the pale or not worthy of equal time. Gumbel complains about Dowd and Rich; does anyone but me recall the days when the Times' editorial page was the place where senile executive editors went to babble away their dotage? (The far from senile Joseph Lelyveld is currently gracing the pages of The New York Review of Books, I'm pleased to note.) Does he want to bring back the golden days of Flora Lewis, the aging Reston, and the ineffable A.M. Rosenthal? Pleeze. Rockwell notes that he was once a rock critic. If I recall correctly from the Fong-Torres/Bangs/Marsh/Marcus era, the other rock critics regarded him as pretty much of a joke. Calliope, if the Times adds one more new section, I've had it. I just received a letter with my Sunday Times, explaining that they are adding even more feature-type sections on this day and that day. I think this just means more full color photographs of focaccia, arugula salad, and interior decor -- that is, advertiser friendly features. Well, even the Times has to live, I guess.

I only saw bits and pieces for the most part, unfortunately, but my impressions were as follows: Men's -- Missed big chunks of this one, but I enjoyed watching Alexei take his victory laps. If Plushenko had been able to appear Yagudin might have had a slightly harder time, but maybe not -- people tend to run out of gas at Worlds in Olympic years. I was hoping to see Honda or Abt in the second spot -- not to be unpatriotic, but I would be happier if Goebel sat in third for a time internationally, just so it's drilled into him that the quads aren't enough. Ice dancing -- I think I have it worked out now -- you just have to relax and go with the garish campiness of it all, and you'll have a good time. We can't always be ruled by the tyranny of good taste, although I wouldn't say that to Sasha Cohen just now. In any case, in my inexpert opinion the Israelis should not have been on the podium. No edges. That same old choreography to the same old music they've been flogging for years. The judges were telling the Lithuanians that they didn't want to hear any more beefing about the scores, or so it seems to me. I still don't think this quite rates as sport, but the ratings are great so we're probably stuck with it. Pairs -- Missed the pairs completely, alas. Ladies' -- I saw more of this one than the others, chiefly because the girls always get more TV prime time, which I resent although I understand the reasons -- I've usually preferred watching the men. Anyway, it was good to see Slutskaya in the top spot, as she ought to have been in SLC, but no one performed spectacularly this time around, although Jennifer Robinson of all people did seven triples. I still don't like the Tosca program, but I don't blame Slutskaya -- one of my problems with the current state of ladies' skating is this insistence on forcing the women into being "elegant," "lyrical," (or, as Dick Button put it during Kwan's SP, "So ladylike!") whether they are suited to such a style or not. Yoshie Onda was a very pleasant surprise in this respect, and I hope they encourage her (and I hope she gets to work on her presentation skills). Suguri seemed underpowered, and the choreography for her program was competent but not tailored to her, it appeared to me -- I have admired Nichol's choreography in the past, but lately it's seemed rather generic, IMO. Good to see Kwan getting it together in the LP. I noticed something I thought was interesting. Normally when Kwan receives marks as low as those, there tends to be a great wailing and rending of garments among the ABC commentators, but not this time -- Button and Fleming just passed right on to the Wonders of Sasha. Kwan's presentation still seems under par to me -- is it the program? Anyone who tries Scheherazade after Curry is just asking for me to slap him/her around anyway, but I really don't think her suited to that music. Maybe Kwan should just throw in the towel and bring back Taj Mahal.......

Maybe in another era where abstract ballet was not so dominant, we might have seen the reverse of the results we have here; people might have been begging for more technicians and fewer actors in tights. I can't choose, really, but I'll plump for technique, because if someone doesn't have it I'm not going to be wildly interested in his personality. Emily Litella was also hard of hearing. I recall in particular her performance of "I Will Follow Him," which she rendered as "I love him/I love him/I love him/And where he goes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow/I will swallow him...." at which point she was corrected by a grim Jane Curtin.

Maybe in another era where abstract ballet was not so dominant, we might have seen the reverse of the results we have here; people might have been begging for more technicians and fewer actors in tights. I can't choose, really, but I'll plump for technique, because if someone doesn't have it I'm not going to be wildly interested in his personality. Emily Litella was also hard of hearing. I recall in particular her performance of "I Will Follow Him," which she rendered as "I love him/I love him/I love him/And where he goes I'll swallow, I'll swallow, I'll swallow/I will swallow him...." at which point she was corrected by a grim Jane Curtin.

I don't prefer one type over another (not sure if that means I'm admirable for the catholicity of my taste, or too wimpy to choose). As Drew correctly observes, any critical approach has the capacity to be reductive, and sometimes you have to be reductive, in the sense of narrowing your focus, to gain insight. This is perfectly okay, as long as you're not insisting that your perspective is the only "right" one. And as Paul said, most artists, out of necessity, are going to reject the psychological or biographical approach, and rightly so, from their point of view. (But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.) I don't necessarily agree with Schiff's observations, but neither one appears to me to be completely off the wall, and he's engaged in a legitimate area of inquiry. I recall the original exchange of letters between Schiff and Vivian Perlis in the Atlantic, and I thought Perlis pretty much wigged out. She didn't agree with Schiff's approach, or his view of Copland. That's the way it goes.

I don't prefer one type over another (not sure if that means I'm admirable for the catholicity of my taste, or too wimpy to choose). As Drew correctly observes, any critical approach has the capacity to be reductive, and sometimes you have to be reductive, in the sense of narrowing your focus, to gain insight. This is perfectly okay, as long as you're not insisting that your perspective is the only "right" one. And as Paul said, most artists, out of necessity, are going to reject the psychological or biographical approach, and rightly so, from their point of view. (But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to.) I don't necessarily agree with Schiff's observations, but neither one appears to me to be completely off the wall, and he's engaged in a legitimate area of inquiry. I recall the original exchange of letters between Schiff and Vivian Perlis in the Atlantic, and I thought Perlis pretty much wigged out. She didn't agree with Schiff's approach, or his view of Copland. That's the way it goes.

Belated post: Associated Press report on the results of the ladies' LP. You have to love the tactless phrasing of the first paragraph. The writer might as well have started off, Michelle, you loser....: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2002Mar23.html

I think there's always a bit of a shock for the newcomer who's read and heard about Fonteyn, Ballerina of the Century, and then sees a video or two and says, Huh? (That's what I said, anyway.) Kind of slow. No extension. Less than stunning feet. And while I thought it was nasty of Balanchine to compare her hands to spatulas, I sort of saw his point. He preferred Moira Shearer, who was better suited physically and temperamentally to his style; by Fonteyn's own admission, she didn't get the hang of Ballet Imperial at all. The problem wasn't that she couldn't do the steps, let it be noted; but the speed and off balance movement required seems to have escaped her. (I should also note that Balanchine had his problems with Fonteyn people, too; in William Chappell's little book about Fonteyn, he explains that Fonteyn had trouble with Ballet Imperial because Balanchine's work was just so cold, unemotional, classroom steps -- you know, the usual. Those British.) Later on I could appreciate that her dancing was clean and musical and sans gimmickry, but if I'd been watching the company in the forties and fifties I might very well be in the Shearer camp. Even so, it's plainly legitimate to allow that Fonteyn's dancing didn't interest you, VHS, live, or whenever. PLEASE NO ONE take this the wrong way, but there's a difference between defending a dancer you admire and implying that people who don't admire her have no taste, only appreciate the obvious, and so on. I would hope that we could avoid that. Paul, I was especially interested in your comments about how Fonteyn's physique affected her approach to certain roles. You can see this in Romeo and Juliet, too, in the adjustments she made to MacMillan's choreography for Seymour. I would second the vote for the Perfect Partnership video. I also like Keith Money's books -- there are several Fonteyn-related ones, and they're all good, with some wonderful photographs. Re: Martins' Talk interview. I thought he was making not so veiled references to both F&N in that piece. He was trying to defend his dancers against invidious comparisons to stars of the past, a laudable intention, although I wish he hadn't chosen that particular way to do it.

Much too obvious, I know: La Sylphide II: The Sylph Strikes Back

Much too obvious, I know: La Sylphide II: The Sylph Strikes Back

Normally I'd agree with you, alexandra, but in this particular instance I do think the use of the designation "ladies" has a significance that goes beyond political fashions in nomenclature. I recall reading at the time of the Nancy/Tonya imbroglio a judge being quoted as saying something to the effect of, "Nancy's a lady, we can all see that." (And men have been "men" in sport since the long gone days of Gentlemen v. Players.) Anyway. It's too bad about Volchkova. I didn't see her this time around, but it really is unfortunate to see someone with her potential go to waste. Her "Gone with the Wind" program was really odd to watch -- it wasn't just that the choreography was uninspired, but there was no attempt to fit it to the music technically or thematically (I'm not saying she should have worn a hoop skirt or Miss Ellen's portieres. )

Slutskaya leads after the ladies' short program: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-...mpionships.html Parenthetically, when are the "ladies" going to be referred to as "women," as in most other sports in the known universe?

Interesting. I don't know the company, but Stretton just arrived. Maybe he should get a break. If he's giving too much to Cojocaru and Kobborg, maybe it's because he has more confidence in those two. Democratic casting isn't always good casting. There could be many reasons for a rash of injuries; I'd think it would take a little time before it would be possible to determine why. (Which doesn't mean fruitful speculation isn't worthwhile.)

Well, even if it's personal, I wouldn't mind knowing. Actually, according to an interview Martins gave to the late unlamented Talk magazine, it seems to have involved the disposition of the office furniture. I believe a sofa was mentioned.