Anthony_NYC

Maybe there have been too many "discussions about the discussion" here already, but I don't see how this is impolite to Peter Martins. It's not about him, it's about the entity called New York City Ballet--it's dancers, its administration, its repertoire, its artistic mission, etc. What could be more interesting or important than that? Just today, there is an article in the New York Times about how Merce Cunningham and Paul Taylor have realized the need to plan ahead for what will happen to their companies after their deaths. I've heard Martins say in interviews that he doesn't intend to keep his job until his dying day. I don't have anything to add to the discussion itself, except that I hope NYCB takes under advisement all the intelligent and well-meaning comments I regularly read here on Ballet Talk!

Oy hes got as much of a tin ear as Eliot Feld when it comes to naming his company it doesnt make sense anyway without punctuation but he he mght at least add one more word and let the world know its a dance company. However, it's tremendously exciting news! I admire his boldness, and wish him the best.

I had been feeling sympathetic to Alagna--we all have our bad days when we do regrettable things--but now he's just getting silly.

No doubt. But it's nice to see family trying to carry on the tradition carrying on the tradition, though.Some years back, Shakespeare in the Park revived the wonderful show "On the Town." As I waited on line for tickets there was a stir as Comden and Green walked by, apparently on their way to a rehearsal. Then that evening, just before the performance began, they were spotted again (I heard later they attended every single performance) and the audience gave them a long, spontaneous, and heartfelt standing ovation. It was a love fest the whole evening, the best sort of New York audience, with lots and lots of laughter and applause all along. I'll never forget how at the hilarious "I Wish I Was Dead" sequence the usher in my section--who must have seen the show ten times already--was laughing so hard he had to sit down in the aisle. (I myself was weeping with laughter.) And during the romantic "Lucky to Be Me," as couples strolled about the stage arm in arm, the back of the stage swung open to reveal the real Central Park as backdrop, miraculously illuminated that night by a huge full moon hanging in the sky above. As we wandered back to the Upper West Side, my friend spoke of how even in "Singin' in the Rain," a Hollywood movie about Hollywood, the zany wit, affectionate irreverence, the speed and sophistication--it's New York through and through. And we noted how their version of New York wasn't a dream at all--there it was all around us, it just took Comden and Green to make us see it. God bless them. It seems like a miracle that artists like that can come into the world from time to time to banish the loneliness and sadness, and make me utterly, completely happy--right now, right here.

I heard from someone who saw a preview that Dreamgirls is "fabulous" (his word). It better be. He also told me--can anyone verify?--that the first-run movie theaters showing it will charge $25.00 per ticket!

I don't remember if it was in the commentary on the DVD or in some article I read somewhere, but the cast of "Gosford Park" spoke of how they had no idea what they were doing during filming, it seemed like total chaos on the set. It wasn't until they saw the final product that it all came together for them.

"Altman's art, like Fred Astaire's, is the great American art of making the impossible look easy." --Pauline Kael

Did anybody see "Shortbus"? I'm not sure we can discuss it in any detail here (graphic sex), but a friend dragged me to see it, and it surprised me. Not a great movie, but often touching and funny, and pretty original, too.

Some friends of mine in musical theater just get so angry on the subject of the movie "Cabaret." They see it as the beginning of the end of movie musicals, the first one where none of the characters ever bursts into song--the show was completely rewritten so that all the songs happen as part of the cabaret act. The songs that didn't fit (and sometimes the characters that sang them) were chucked. I can certainly understand the objection. However, in this case, while I think the stage show is great, I find the movie even more powerful. dirac, I have to disagree about Minnelli at the end, I think the big finish is perfect for Fosse's conception. With those big, insanely bright show-biz eyes of hers, she lands the title number, an irresistable invitation to join her and "come to the cabaret"; the MC asks "Where are your trouble now?...Auf Wiedersehen, a bientot"--and then creepily makes his final bow and disappears mid-sentence; the drumroll as the camera scans across the crowd in the funhouse mirror; the swasitka armband... It's not what Isherwood wrote, but I think it's just brilliant.

I don't know about the others, but I've got an hour. Give us the rant!

Major event! PBS is rebroadcasting the very great documentary "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years." That is thrilling enough, since it was off-limits for years due to absurd copyright problems--but I see on PBS's website that the whole thing is also going to be released on a set of 7 DVDs on October 24. I imagine a lot of you have seen it, but if you haven't, well, I cannot recommend it highly enough. Even at a price of $375, buyer's remorse is unlikely. Preorder here. If you can't afford the DVDs, though, do NOT miss it on PBS!

The Bolshoi and "In the Upper Room"--now that sounds like fun!

"The Volcano Lover" is the only one of her novels I've read. I so wanted to love it, but have to admit I found it tough going. Not because it's difficult--it's not--but because it just didn't engage me deeply on any level. I read her play "Alice in Bed" and didn't understand a word of it. She seems to have had no talent for expressing ideas through narrative, characterization, evocation of period. She was much, much better as an essayist.Getting back on subject, I just finished Luciano Berio's "Remembering the Future." It's the print edition of his Charles Eliot Norton Lectures, and a completely absorbing read by one of the great creative (and intellectual) minds of recent times. An instant classic. It's interesting that great artists have often written great essays, but great essayists don't, if they're bold enough to try, usually make good art.

Actually, broadcasting Nutcracker live to movie theaters once a year, like the Met plans to do with opera, could be a terrific idea, and bring legions of new fans to ballet.

I've always loved it too. However, I notice it's more moving and haunting in the theater. I think you need to see the whole stage picture at this point.

I have the DVD and I love it. No, they don't look like NYCB--but we already have NYCB, I don't want every company to look the same. The big thing for me is, the dancers of POB dance as if they *love* what they're dancing, are eager to give themselves over to it completely (and they didn't stint on producction values, either). Unlike, say, ABT, who often look like they're just dutifully paying their respects to that guy from across the plaza before going on to something more interesting.

And then there's "immanent," a perfectly good word which seems to have disappeared altogether, maybe because nobody could tell it apart from the other two.About impact as a verb: I don't like it, but gave up on it when Robert Penn Warren used it that way in one of his best-known poems. If I recall correctly, it was first published in the New Yorker, no less! And "waiting on": When I moved to New York many years ago, this drove me crazy. It sounded so odd to me. At some point, though, I realized I had begun to say it myself, and now it sounds perfectly normal. It's really no different than the difference between living ON a street and living IN a street. (In New York, if you live in a street, you're homeless.)

Although it doesn't bother me now as much as it used to, Sondheim's self-loathing disguised as loathing of others can be really distateful. One of the reasons "Sweeney Todd" is, for me, one of Sondheim's best shows is that the gothic element of it is a perfect vehicle for his cynicism and misanthropy--it's an established part of the genre. It's also one of his musically richest and most ingenious scores. dirac, I myself find the second act is musically at least as good as the first. It begins with that amazing "God that's good" number in which multiple simultaneous events are set forth musically and dramatically fast and witty and still perfectly clear (which is part of what makes it funny)--a real high point for Sondheim. I also thing dramatically the show works great. In a good performannce it's really thrilling, especially as the vise begins to close during the second act. I can see it, in the right hands, being a gripping movie. "Sweeney" is also a show that doesn't belabor it's theme, doesn't show off how it's "about" something. I agree somewhat about some of the later shows. Let's hope Sondheim never collaborates with Lapine again. Those heavy-handed books of his nearly sink "Sunday" and "Into the Woods." Nevertheless, I have to say that "Sunday" moved me to tears in places--it contains some of Sondheim's most personal music. Unfortunately, when they weren't singing one had to endure that dialogue with its sophomoric musings on Art. Just awful.

Kater has written several excellent books about musicians in the Third Reich. He's undoubtedly the world's great expert on the subject. Several years ago, I had brief e-mail correspondence with him (professionally related--he was well extremely helpful with some information about Thomas Mann, so he knows about more than just musicians). He told me that his dedication to the subject of the Third Reich and its crimes undoubtedly stems from his having been the son of a Nazi. After the war, his family moved away from Germany (to the U.S., if I recall correctly). Kater was three; he now lives and teaches in Canada. All of which I mention because this man who cannot in any way be held responsible for the crimes Germany committed, yet the mere accident of his birth has made him feel a pressing moral obligation to seek out and speak the truth. If he occasionally overstates his case or seems too eager to condemn, I find the impulse behind that far more honest and honorable than Schwarzkopf's, who just denied denied denied out of pure self-interest. And yet, I adore her recordings! Last night I found myself completely absorbed in PBS's "American Masters," about the complicated relationship between Elia Kazan and Arthur Miller, and how it and the politics of their time gave rise to their work. Viewed from inside that story, it would indeed be difficult to enjoy Kazan's movies. But Miller's biographer points out--perceptively, I think--that they and Miller's plays have outlived the specifics of their genesis to acquire a timeless truthfulness. It is an unsettling thought.

Deborah Kerr was better than either Wood or Hepburn at matching up to Nixon's singing. Watch the way she moves in the musical numbers in "The King and I" or the title tune of "An Affair to Remember"--she is really quite superb, very eloquent and musical, with a real understanding of how the act of singing affects the whole body. I've always wondered if this was natural to her, of if Nixon helped her with that aspect of her performance.

Streep--I was thinking the same thing! It would be wonderful to see what she'd do with the role; I bet she'd be very funny. But is she too old to play against Depp?Chenoweth would be a natural for Johanna, but I don't know how she is on screen (has she done any movies?). I was just thinking that Joaquin Phoenix would be a better choice for Todd than Depp. He's shown that he can sing presentably, and I can imagine him being terrifically frightening. Depp just seems too mild, but I hope he'll surprise me. I agree--why not dub. They're lip-synching during filming anyway. (Though I suppose it would be ridiculous to put Terfel's voice into Depp's mouth.)

I'll wait and see how casting goes, but Depp in the title role doesn't give me confidence. Unless I'm wrong and he's a strong singer (from what I read he's doing his own vocals) and can truly be menacing instead of just weird. It takes more than voice to land a song, but with rare exceptions voice is a necessary component. Unfortunately, underplaying musical values in musical theater seems to be the trend nowadays. The Broadway revival of "Follies" a few years back showed what a mistake it is in a Sondheim musical to cast actors in the leads who aren't truly musical performers. It's true about Lansbury. She was so perfect that it's hard to see anybody else in the role. It could be fun if Burton shows some imagination about casting, but if Madonna gets the part I'll probably be slashing the screen with my own razor.

The troublesome question for me is always, how much should I allow my knowledge of the person affect my response to his or her art? Actually, my response isn't really voluntary, it just happens from the gut. I have to admit, deeply as I have always loved her, I have a little bit of a problem separating Schwarzkopf the person from Schwarzkopf the musician, because in her singing I can hear that Teutonic scrupulousness, the coolness and self-containment, maybe a whiff of arrogance. Combine that with her physical beauty and the sexy allure of the voice, and she can seem positively dangerous, the Hitchcock blond of sopranos. On the other hand, I don't have any problems with Kazan's movies, Karajan's conducting, Prokofiev's music. Others do, and not only can I respect that, it can make me feel ashamed of myself. I don't know what it's like to be gifted with the vision, talent, and drive it takes to be a great artist. When I try to imagine it, I think I can see how I might, more easily than I'd like to admit, make moral compromises to advance my career. Even without any kind of genius as an excuse I don't do very well. When my own country has been (in my opinion) seriously oppressive, immoral, inhumane, even murderous, what have I done? I've bellyached about it with like-minded friends, tried to keep up with the news, voted. Not much of an effort from me considering what the stakes are for other people. I don't know if that means I should be more judgmental about myself, less judgmental about others, or (probably) both at once, but the sad fact is I don't think I've changed much in all my years.

Paul, thank you for your eloquent words about Schwarzkopf. For me, too, she was one of the greatest of singers. She was one of those very rare artists who could make craftsmanship itself a thing of transcendental beauty. I hope we will finally get a DVD release of her famous Rosenkavalier film. In the meantime, I'm making do with a DVD called "Elisabeth Schwarzkopf - A Self-Portrait". It begins badly, with Schwarzkopf getting defensive right off the bat, saying "My family never had any interest in politics," and in general it's a bit skimpy on the details of her life. But the reason to watch it is for the priceless performance clips, which are just such a joy. I also highly recommend, if you can find it, a very wonderful disc of Wolf lieder she made with Furtwängler at the piano. And her famous album of operetta favorites is indispensable. (The way she takes advantage of German sibilance! And such style! Has anybody else ever made "Meine Lippen, sie küssen so heiß" so irresistably seductive?) For me, though, she was at her very greatest as a Mozart singer--that long, perfectly focused line, the exquisite phrasing, the attention to words--and those are the recordings I'm listening to today.

How about "Screaming Teenybopper Night," scheduled when Carreno, Corella, Ferri...well, I guess any night at ABT. (As long as there isn't ice skating at Madison Square Garden.) "Murder at the Ballet": West Side Story Suite, Slaughter on Tenth Avenue, and any Martins ballet (the audience dies).