Anthony_NYC

Yes, the movie, and the play on which it's based, are exactly that: very good. Not great, I'd say. I've always had a problem separating them from the James novella, which to me is sharper and more uncompromising. Sloper, James makes it clear, is right in thinking his daughter dull. In the play and movie she is much more self-knowing, and it completely changes the dynamic of the relationships and even, I would say, the meaning of the story. This reminds of every dramatic or film version of A Christmas Carol I've ever seen. They all leave out Dickens's cruellest, most piercing moment ("All alone in the world, I do believe"), thereby making the story more sentimental and the ending less rewarding.

Yes, I know what you mean about message movies. Still, with Kazan, Garfield, and Holm all involved, it has to be worth a watch, I'd think, if only to see how it fits into those artists' careers. His handsomeness always had an element of fragility to it, and those big blue expressive eyes are great for the camera. A while back I watched Judgment at Nuremburg (a movie that, despite it's obvious faults--including no small amount of preaching to the choir--I continue to find pretty absorbing), and his now broken face adds a very immediate credibility and plangency (did I just use that word mentioned as a cliché in another threat? Yes I did!) to his performance. Another astonishing performance. Last summer I was in Brooklyn's Prospect Park and learned to my surprise that Clift is buried in a gated cemetery on Quaker Hill.

Streep has always had her famous gift for accents and mimicry and a kind of sculptural approach to creating a character. Way back when I used to find this impressive, almost incredible, but somehow not quite engaging. But nowadays I find her to be one of the most consistently entertaining actors in movies, and just about the only one who'll get me to go to a film based solely on her being in it. This brief preview already looks promising. IMDB gives a December 16 U.S. release date. I can't wait!

Lol, indeed. Having always liked Celeste Holm a great deal in the few movies I've seen her in, I now have to investigate Gentleman's Agreement. Thoughts from those of you who know it?

It's hard to know what's going on here, especially when the family history appears to be rather complicated. The story does do a good job of representing different points of view, but it doesn't really explain how the son took control of her money. Did she sign off on the trust deal or did the son have power of attorney? If she's mentally fit, why can't she do whatever she wants with her money, her apartment, her life? That includes arranging a marriage with somebody she finds companionable who will keep her company in her great old age. It's not as if that's anything new under the sun (though the sexes are usually reversed). For a happier story about Celeste Holm and her apartment, there this article. I'm glad somebody gets to live like that. Anthony

Yes, and just to be clear, I didn't post this link to get into another argument about personal rights or what constitutes rude behavior. (After being away for a week, I discover that while smoking may kill, threads about smoking will never die!) No, what I find disturbing is that increasingly people seem unable to give themselves over for two hours at a stretch to the event taking place in front of their eyes. And I have to admit I even feel this tendency happening in me, which is shocking and scary. Not that I text during performances--but I might sometimes if I weren't so self-conscious about my neighbors. I also find it harder to read without distraction when I'm doing it on one of my handheld devices. I'm too tempted to check my email, the news headlines, the weather report. Until I read this article I didn't know about the dopamine aspect. Are we all getting doped up by messages from our friends? Should I start leaving my phone at home when I go to the theater? I keep telling myself I will, but I never do. I guess it does feel like an addiction!

The Chicago Tribune has an article about the sudden increase of people texting during movies and live performances that are supposed to take place in a darkened theater. Maybe it's a New York variation on this, but on a number of occasions I ask somebody to turn their phone off and they either stare at me like I'm crazy or they simply flip their phone over so the LED is in their lap--and then they keep turning it over (surreptitiously, they think) every few minutes to see if there's a new message, which is almost more distracting than keeping the dang thing on. It's like a form of autism. They just cannot train their mind on the event at hand, or comprehend how their behavior affects others. Anthony

My, this subject brings up strong emotions! Personal space, yes. Also, good old-fashioned manners. If you know you stink, you stay away from people; even homeless people who don't have an opportunity to bathe understand that and usually settle themselves in some out-of-the-way spot. And when did it become all right to light up without asking in the presence of someone who's not smoking? Nearly every weekend when the weather is nice you can find me reading in the park. I can't tell you how many times over the years somebody takes a spot on the bench next to mine, or occasionally even on my bench, and without so much as asking do you mind they start puffing away. I mean honestly, they *never* ask. Ever! It used to be I would say something, but that sometimes led to testy words that spoiled my mood. So now I don't say anything, though I suppose the alacrity with which I stand and vacate the vicinity makes it pretty obvious why I'm leaving. Who, please, is the "smoking nazi" in this scenario? Who has a seat, and who has none? Surely we can agree that if we non-smokers avoid smokers when we see them in the park, they can do the same for us? But getting back to the original subject: it seems what I said before was taken exactly the opposite of how I meant it. My "thing" about not drinking in front of children is, I know all too well, my own personal quirk, and I know of not a single person who shares it! I only spoke of it as an example of how easy it is to make a habit of not doing something possibly offensive in front of other people, especially children and teenagers. On the other hand: One is chosen to be a role model, yes, I believe that; but I don't think anybody has to feel obligated to live up to that responsibility if they don't want it. And the younger somebody is, the more likely they will choose the deliberately provocative action rather than the one that would mark them as a good citizen. Oh, but if Dupont had just said a quick "do you mind?" to those present before taking that cigarette, I would have cheered for her! If more people were willing to be a role model for etiquette, perhaps we wouldn't need so many laws to enforce what should just be common sense and good manners. Anthony

Gelb at the Metropolitan Opera also did a somewhat radical rethinking of pricing, but in a way that actually makes good seats available to more people. There was a lot of grumbling at first, but the result is the auditorium is quite full most nights, top to bottom. (This is based purely on my personal observation--I'm typically there about once a week--not on any statistics I have at hand.) It seems like NYCB is just giving up. Instead of doing the work of trying to get more people into the seats, they've chosen a route that might very possibly reduce the size of the audience even further, all in order to enhance an *illusion* of there being more people. Count me among those who would rather sit center in the fourth ring than on the far sides of the orchestra, and the irritation factor alone of being forced to do that might make me go less often. It would be fantastic if NYCB could get a donor to recreate at the State Theater the rush ticket program the Met has, where any remaining orchestra seats in the orchestra go on sale two hours before the performance for $20. Anthony

About role models: You don't choose to be one, you're chosen. When chosen, some try to live up to it, others not. This discussion reminds me how my aunt, who went to AA meetings all her adult life, thought it improper of my parents to have a cocktail in front of children, and she said it aloud (though nicely) in front of us. To this day I will decline a drink at family events. Much as I love my scotch, it's really not that hard a sacrifice. I can have a drink later, or on the sly. A libertarian part of me agrees that our smoking bans in New York go too far. But in truth I love them! It used to be nobody could drag me into a bar, now I think it's fun to have a drink after a show. I think most smokers are unaware how repulsive their habit is to some of us. Thanks to my father, who always smoked in the car, all my life just the slightest whiff of cigarette smoke makes me feel instantly carsick. Nevertheless, if somebody walking in front of me on the street is smoking, I don't say anying or give them a dirty look. I just cross the street. I did have to ask management of my building to talk to another tenant, a retired man, about his smoking all day long right in the front doorway. Also, I've had my peace in the park spoiled way too many times to object to the smoking ban there. It's just as disruptive to my enjoyment as radio playing, and that's outlawed so why not smoking? I feel one does have to emphasize the human cost of smoking. My father did three packs a day, and when he finally quit it was too late. With his chronic emphysema, we who loved him got to watch him for twelve years very slowly and painfully drown. Trust me, there was nothing glamorous or sophisticated about it. Anthony

Bart, I'd suggest that the laughter upon seeing recreations on screen of famous artists from the 1920s isn't due to self-satisfaction, but to Allen's showing us our own absurdly and delightfully stereotyped view of these characters. That after all is the theme of the movie--our remembrance of things past (especially those things we didn't actually experience ourselves) is painted in broad, easy strokes, when we know that in reality these had to be people like any other, with layers of complication and also of bland ordinariness that all human beings possess, regardless of their fame or achievements or the era in which they live. The past, the place and time we are not, in our imagination always seems more vivid and magical than the all-too-real present. Which sounds like way too much analysis for this little movie! Did I find it deep? No, just funny and charming and beautiful to look at.

Like dirac, I certainly don't begrudge Reynolds the money. How could anybody, when she alone saved and preserved these items for so many years? (And anyway, who doesn't love Debbie Reynolds and wish her all success and happiness?) Let's face it, though, the costs were not driven up so high by their intrinsic aesthetic value, but because they were worn by famous people in iconic movie scenes. It's pure fetishism with mass appeal, like having a piece of the true cross, and people or corporations want to turn that fetishism into an investment opportunity. Well, it's a free country and people can spend their money however they like, I guess. Perhaps some of them will go on tour--more money-making potential--so at least people can see them instead of having them locked away in a vault somewhere. Anthony

I find the prices shocking! It's no wonder Reynolds couldn't find anyone to purchase the whole collection. Who could possibly afford it? Certainly no museum, unless a wealthy donor came forward on its behalf. Clothing and costumes are notoriously difficult to preserve, so one hope the buyers have the good sense to further invest in the proper treatment and storage of their new trophies. Anthony

Thanks so much, Batsuchan, for the descriptions! I was so sorry I couldn't make more than one performance (there's so much going on culturally right now, not least the Danes across the plaza), as otherwise I always like to catch at least two casts for each ballet. It looks likely it will be revived, so hopefully next year I can get to it again. Anthony

Since you are yourself now playing the critic, could you back up the opinion above with specific examples? While I've certainly read bad critics with an agenda, honestly, I'm not sure what you're referring to in Macaulay's case.

Only a bad critic as an agenda; a good critic has an opinion. Because what they're writing about is worth having an opinion about. I don't think a critic or newspaper can be blamed if a lazy or ignorant reader is going to let one columnist do their thinking for them. Both Edwin Denby and Virgil Thompson have written classic (and beautifully concise) essays about the task of the critic. I don't have the volumes handy, but one or the other has a marvelous passage comparing the critic to a man on the street talking vehemently to someone else. A passing stranger might well think the guy is crazy, but at the same time it's apparent that whatever he is talking about must be very real to him, and important. I first "experienced" dance when I was living in the cornfields of the Midwest. Writers like Denby, Kirstein, Croce made me view ballet as essential to properly furnishing one's mind--this before I'd ever seen a single performance. I had no way of knowing if they were right or wrong in their judgements, but I craved to see ballet for myself and eventually found my way to New York for that very purpose. While I don't think most critics concern themselves--nor should they--with selling a particular company or performance (that's called having an agenda!), they do by their very existence serve the general cause of selling ballet. And these days more than ever we should be grateful that the New York Times has a superb dance critic, that several times a week there is a substantial column in the paper, that even people who never read those columns can't help but see that dance is newsworthy, that is matters. Anthony

It's a thoroughly delightful little movie. Allen is at his best when he isn't overreaching. I too loved Corey Stoll as Hemingway. He delivers his overwrought lines with such lapidary conviction you have to laugh. Great performance. The New York Times review said the movie is "a remarkably comprehensive catalog of the varieties of modernism percolating in Paris between the wars." No, not really. Where were Diaghilev, Balanchine, the Ballets Russes, all the composers? Well, Allen always naturally skews towards the literary, and anyway you can't stuff everything into an hour and forty minutes. I think it's about as perfect a movie as Woody Allen has ever made. Anthony

I'd be interested to hear a comparison from people who saw both Simkin and Hallberg, who are such different types. I saw the latter, and he was the most gigantic and manly sylph you've ever seen. Beautifully acted and danced, too, and completely hilarious.

Yeah, that's the reason I posted the information about this. It seems that the VHS era was the great one for dance fans; so much more was available (legally) than now. So when somebody finally lets us finally see these things again using today's technology and equipment, I like to support them. Again, tell your library you'd like them to subscribe!

There's a really interesting and valuable new "watch on demand" service from Alexander Street Music Press called Dance in Video. See information from the website below (I'm surprised it doesn't mention that many of the coaching and interview films from the Balanchine Foundation are included). Pricing probably puts it out of reach for most individuals, but if your library collects in the area of dance you should definitely ask them to subscribe. Mine makes it available to me at home by logging in with my library card's barcode, and I haven't been able to stop watching--that despite the fact that they haven't yet figured out how to get 16:9 films to play back in the correct aspect ratio (this can be excruciating) and a few other bugs in the playback that I'm sure will get fixed eventually. It's in its infancy, but it's a great start! Considering how little dance has made it onto DVD or Netflix, this is a godsend. --Anthony Dance in Video (from Alexander Street Press)

Agreed, papeetepatrick, that Macauley can write so well--intelligently, enthusiastically, eloquently--that he makes me want to go to the ballet more often. I also love the ballet season as we currently know it, May and June with those casual-chic ballet audiences and the beautiful weather and the gelato vendors, it's just a joy. But I miss ballet during the many months when neither company is performing. And I can't help but think each of them could draw a larger audience if they didn't divide them. miliosr, I think I just have to disagree. It sounds like you want decisions made completely on the basis of what sells rather than on any aesthetic criteria. I understand the need to make money, but how low would my opinion of the Metropolitan Opera fall, for instance, if they eliminated Wozzeck in order to replace it with yet four more La Bohèmes. And anyway, does that awful full-length Corsaire really have to be more of a draw than a properly advertised mixed bill showing off some of the company's biggest stars? And why in heaven's name hasn't ABT done something about Don Q, Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty? It's their core repertoire, yet everybody knows the productions are poor. I'm convinced the muddled storytelling of Don Q could be improved just by changes to some of the pantomime, but nobody's bothered to touch it in fifteen years. It's infuriating.

With City Opera vacating the State Theater, I hope ABT and City Ballet will alternate seasons there. It would make so much more sense than their competing directly against one another, and after all it is the theater created especially for ballet. And many of ABT's mixed bills would look much better in a less monumental house. miliosr, I'm not sure I am understanding you right. ABT is only doing four performances of a single mixed bill this season. They're clearly not listening to Macauley's advice anyway (and I'm sure he's not expecting them to), and in the meantime his talking about the program generates press and therefore interest. In fact, the friend I attended with last night decided to go with me at the last minute precisely because Macauley's article piqued her curiosity.

You can go to the Metropolitan Opera's website and see that the mixed bill indeed is not selling well. It's mystifying: three famous choreographers presenting new ballets with great dancers in the middle of ballet season in New York. I don't pay much attention to advertising, but is ABT's PR department perhaps to blame? At any rate, given this state of affairs I can't see anything wrong with Macauley devoting several paragraphs to a discussion about ABT's programming. And his self-deprecating humor made me laugh:

While I'm generally an Altman fan, he lost me on this one. But I wonder if it's worth revisiting. I thought "Nashville" boring and pointless when I first saw it, then watched it again years later and it was obviously a great movie. Has anybody given it a second go and changed their mind about it?

Stecyk, sorry, I should have explained more clearly that the women in my little story were doing the New York deadpan. Translated to ordinary speech, the exchange would probably be something like: "Wasn't that wonderful?" "My god, it was glorious!" Lucky you! My suggestion would be just to relax and soak it in. As those two old women show, Serenade is one of those beautiful works of art that, once experienced, are with you for the rest of your life.