Anthony_NYC

Interesting discussion! It seems to me a crucial point that when Kirstein brought Balanchine to America, the first thing they did was found a school. Balanchine was thus able to cultivate generations of dancers personally trained in his aesthetic and technique. Many ballet companies have their own schools, but how many individual ballet (as opposed to modern dance) choreographers been able to do that? For that matter, which companies besides NYCB have been founded and maintained by one choreographer, to show off his work? What I'm getting at is, do you think Balanchine would have been able to have his own school or large, stable company Europe? (I don't mean these questions rhetorically, by the way, I honestly don't know.) If so, what kind of company would it be? If not, then personally I think there's no telling what would have become of him, except that his output would have been very different.

And, regarding Clark Gable as Romeo. Why not? -- especially if Leonardo Di Caprio was considered by some to be up to the part. Once you throw the poetry out of Romeo, you might as well hire John Wayne, come to think of it.

You remind me of a priceless story I read in John Simon's column. I would love to believe it is true.

"Dustin Hoffman used to tell a story (apocryphal, no doubt) about John Wayne's essaying the lead in a stage production of Macbeth. In no time, the audience erupted in guffaws. Angered, the Duke marched downstage and bellowed, 'Listen, I didn't write this crap!'"

In Greenblatt's book "Will of the World" he makes the case that Shakespeare's essentially a downer when it comes to romances, and he paints a pretty bleak future for even the "successful" pairs.

Bernard Knox, I think it is, somewhere comments that Homer rings down the curtain mighty fast as soon as Odysseus is reunited with Penelope. The story is always over when the match (or reunion) is made; we don't want to see anything more! I think that's just because we ordinary mortals know the reality of romance's shelf life. The sequel to "Pride and Prejudice" would probably be titled "Adultery and Alimony." And "Sleeping Beauty" would be followed by "Wide Awake Now."

But I have to agree with Bart. Beatrice and Benedick are one of Shakespeare's most delightful couples, and I think one does tend to think their relationship has a better chance than most of surviving in the long run. Emma Thompson is just a joy (born under a dancing star indeed!), and Branagh is really good, too. The rest of the cast is hit-or-miss, the music is an overblown disaster, but the two leads save the day.

For me, Shakespeare seems largest and most humane in the comedies. Anyway, in a good performance they move me to tears more often than the tragedies. I always have the feeling that if we could meet Shakespeare the man, he would most resemble the guy we'd expect from "Much Ado," "As You Like It," "Twelfth Night."

Well, I for one think Streep is terrific in comedic roles, probably *because* of the mask she wears. She's the only reason to see a movie like "She-Devil" or "Death Becomes Her," but I don't mind telling you that I can watch her in those over and over. She doesn't try to make the roles deep, she just has great fun using all her considerable technique to make us laugh. Something about that touches me.

Her b--chy scenes were hilarious, but what stayed with me were the quiet scenes that showed her vulnerability. You could see into her soul.

Oh no. She has a *soul* in this one? I was hoping for so much less.

I'm supposed to see "History Boys" in August. (Even before the awards it was hard to get good seats.) I'm hoping for the best, because every year I continue to lose interest in Broadway. In "Threepenny Opera" Jim Dale was great, the rest of the cast pretty good, and there was an excellent ensemble of musicians. But the direction, as widely reported, was just awful. It was like watching a high school production. Before that I saw "Sweeney Todd" and simply do not understand all the raves. Underpowered performances (especially Cerveris), underpowered musical values, and direction that at times made the musical numbers completely incomprehensible unless you knew in advance what they were about.

And horrible, horrible , horrible amplification in both cases. When ticket prices are so high, why do we get bargain-basement productions that sound as if they might be canned and played through cheap equipement? I'd rather stay home and watch one of the Shakespeare movies you all are talking about on another thread.

Question: What happens in the first minutes after the curtain goes up? There was action upstage in the fireplace, but the lighting was so dark I couldn't make out what was going on.

Does anybody know where one can purchase prints of Caras or Kolnik photographs of New York City Ballet? NYCB's shop used to carry some, but no longer. Kolnik's site doesn't seem to have even contact information for the photographer.

"Royal Wedding" must be mentioned, I think, because it includes two of his most iconic solos, the one with a hat rack and the one where he dances around the walls and ceiling of his room. I love Jane Powell, and their numbers together--especially "How Could You Believe Me When I Said I Loved You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life" (that must be the longest song title ever!)--are terrific. Great score by the perpetually underrated Burton Lane (who also wrote "Finian's Rainbow").

Not sure I'm allowed to post here, but here goes. The only time I saw the Kirov do "Emeralds," maybe five years ago in London, they left off the coda. Do they still do this (and if so--why oh why???)? Can I keep my fingers crossed that it will be included on the DVD?

I agree with the consensus about the Renoir films (I wouldn't know how to choose between them, they're both so great), but do want to put in a good word for KMK. True, it's even better on stage, but the movie is just so colorful and tuneful and fun, with terrific performances all around, it'll put you in a happy mood no matter what. Since you saw the recent Broadway production on TV, you might find it interesting to compare the two versions; the changes are significant. In one respect MGM betters the original, by giving "From This Moment On" the treatment it deserves.

Count me among those who found the movie of "Remains of the Day" a bit of a bore. The book is beautifully done and so much more touching, with a more compelling protagonist.

By the way, anyone else find it hard to watch Stroheim in "Grande Illusion" nowadays without thinking of Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers movies?

After the long discussion here about the book, I was looking foward to a vigorous debate about the movie. Instead--a thudding silence!

I read the book several months ago, expecting not to be able to put it down. Instead I found it hard to pick up. It took me forever to finish; night after night, I would read a few chapters, then put it down in favor of something more interesting. Cardboard (and not very bright) characters, witless dialogue, no style whatsoever. Plus, Brown has a thorougly annoying, schoolchildish way of throwing in Fascinating Facts I Learned While Researching This Book that have nothing whatsoever to do with the plot.

Nevertheless, Brown does have skill in weaving his facts and theories together into a plot, one that picks up considerably towards the end, so I thought it would make a good movie. Maybe if someone like De Palma had made it. In the event, Howard and his screenwriter are just too faithful to the book. Poor Hanks and Tautou have no personalities to play; with their dull dialogue, they both seem at a loss for what to do with themselves. It has a bit of visual style, especially for the flashback scenes, but I don't think they ever made a decision regarding the fact that half the movie takes place at night; the gloom doesn't "speak." It's very talky, and I had to explain a lot to the friend I saw it with

The oddest thing, I found, was the monotonous pacing of the movie. There were no highs, no thrills, nothing to point up the moments of revelation. (The undistinguished soundtrack is no help at all.) To my surprise, I wound up thinking the book was better than the movie--which I really didn't think was possible!

Other opinions?

Yeah, that lushness that carbro mentioned, I see it as contralto too. Spinto soprano, humm, I'll have to think about that one, I'm not sure the company has one right now. Then again, how often does their rep. call for one.

Juliet, I agree American in Paris silly, but I too am glad I stayed tonight because Jennifer Ringer has to be counted one of the great stage beauties, and such beautiful dancing, too. She and Woetzel look good together.

Speaking of beauties in silly ballets, totally by chance as I type this Zorina is dancing Balanchine in "Goldwyn Follies" on TCM.

More and more stuff is actually staying in print nowadays, it's just you have to figure out what form it's in and where to find it, which can be quite a challenge!

The Marco Polo recording of "Pavillon d'Armide" is actually still available, via Naxos Music Library, a subscription streaming service. If you're in the U.S., it's possible you have access to this at home compliments of your library (check your library's website or give them a call).

The recording of "Narcisse et Echo" came out on Chandos. That label now sells everything in its catalog online as a download. Here's a direct link to the Tcherepnin.

It's a big orchestra for "Pavillon":

3 flutes (3rd doubling on piccolo)

2 oboes

1 English horn

2 clarinets

1 bass clarinet

2 bassoons

1 contrabassoon

4 horns

3 trumpets

3 trombones

1 tuba

timpani

percussion (cymbals, triangle, bass drum, snare drum, side drum, glockenspiel, xylophone)

2 harps

celesta

The usual complement of strings

You can rent the performance materials for this and lots of other Nikolai Tcherepnin pieces from C.F. Peters.

I don't know where you're located, but if all else fails you can have a pianist record the piece from the piano score, which a couple of US. libraries have on microfilm.

My recollection of Nureyev in the role is just as Sandik describes it. He was clearly not in great shape, but was mesmerizing and moving in spite of panting and perspiring in a worrisome way. Even small things--the way he folded his lute into the ground, his posture and countenance as he sat watching the Muses--were unforgettable. Unfortunately, the powerful effect was eviscerated by his three Parisian Muses, who flounced through the ballet as if it were just the cutest thing. I always thought Martins was particularly superb in this ballet, with that great classical repose of his, a marble god to Farrell's alabaster princess. Boal was also one of my favorites; I only wish he had a more godlike height, to give the role more weight. Zelensky has the height, but I always found him gangly and lacking nobility. Right now, I think Hübbe is my favorite. But I'm very much looking forward to Hallberg in the role.

I much prefer the full Apollo. It shows his development more clearly, which makes the final scene more powerful and meaningful. I also think the "sunrise" image is more moving when it's just another passing moment in a chain of extraordinary metaphorical events. Also, I just adore the moment before the blackout, with arms aloft and lyre-like, undulating to the sound Apollo's lute. What a great ballet! And Balanchine was what, 25 when he made it? It boggles the mind.

Going back to Rockwell's article: This is the kind of piece the Times does a lot of nowadays, and it drives me nuts. NYCB used to be called the most important dance company in the world. Therefore, one doesn't compare it to a worse-case scenario, or even to other dance companies; one compares it to the Ideal. We even did that during Balanchine's day. Whatever happened to the critic as passionate advocate? This lukewarm "Yeah, it's not that bad," is for the birds.

Yes, i could definitely see Stephen Fry as Diaghilev. And how about Ben Kingsley as Stravinsky, Liam Neeson as Kirstein, and Nikolai Hübbe as Peter Martins?

As for Suzanne Farrell, let's face it, nobody could play her, not the person and certainly not the dancer! She should be portrayed by a stream of light that morphs unpredictably, sometimes appearing in the form of a radiant votive candle, sometimes like a fiery thunderbolt out of the blue.

Who could play him today?

An actor with a Russian accent who is also a dancer that worked with him. Baryshnikov.

That's a great idea. But then, who will play Baryshnikov?

While rewatching the PBS documentary about Balanchine, it once again occurred to me that his life would make for a sensational biopic. I suppose it's doubtful that will ever happen. However, he was so central to the cultural life of his time, especially in America, and his life intersected with the lives of so many other important people, in ballet, in Hollywood, on Broadway, it would be strange if he didn't turn up at least as an incidental character in somebody else's biopic. Has he? If so, who played him? Who could play him today?

It seems like in the old studio system they very often threw together movies around a star, with no desire to make any kind of masterpiece. If we remember Doris Day more for being Doris Day than for the movies she made, well, that was probably the point. She was a delightful and talented comic actress who could make any mediocre movie fun to watch. I guess it's always been that way for comedians. I don't think there's a single really great Danny Kaye movie (though "The Court Jester" seems to have achieved classic status); they're all just about watching him do his shtick. And today, I don't believe Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Billy Crystal, etc., have many many good movies, but audiences flock to them anyway. Even the Marx Brothers movies are all a mess (but they were such riotous fun they became classics in spite of themselves).

I was thinking that of today's stars, isn't Julia Roberts in the Grable/Hayworth tradition? While I don't find her a particularly compelling screen presence, apparently a lot of other people do. Most of her movies seem to be big hits, but the ones I've seen have not stuck me as terribly good, and I have doubts as to their staying power.

Mendelsohn is obviously right. The advertising didn't make it absolutely clear that Ennis and Jack were anything more than good buddies, but it did show Williams fondling Ledger in bed. Nevertheless, you have to hand it to Shamus. Reviews, media attention, and word of mouth did a lot of the work, but the advertisers must have known how to spin it just the right way, because the movie's been far more successful than anybody could have predicted.

This is the first year ever that I saw all the Academy Award nominees for Best Picture. I thought "Capote" was superb. Like "Good Night, and Good Luck," it's a small gem of a movie, beautifully made. I admired the New York party scenes, with everybody laughing too much in that self-congratulatory way--very true to life! The performances by Hoffman and Keener were justly praised. My only tiny quibble is I wish they'd left off the explanation at the end about how Capote never finished another book, eventually drinking himself to death. The implication is that this was due to his bad conscience, which seems unnecessarily judgmental and a little bit manipulative.

I never read "In Cold Blood" and knew nothing of its genesis before seeing this movie, but the title has a double meaning for me now.

Incidentally, in case you haven't heard, Kenneth Branagh is currently filming a big-budget version in English. He's setting it in the First World War, and, according to The Guardian, "the three ladies who accompany the Queen of the Night will be recast as field nurses, and the feathered man, Papageno, will become the custodian of canaries used to detect lethal gas." Sigh. On the positive side, Stephen Fry is adapting the libretto (so maybe the updating is tongue-in-cheek?), and Sarastro is sung by Rene Pape.

This has to be one of the most analyzed operas ever. I don't know about good websites, but tons of books and articles have been written about it. The classic book for symbolism is by Jacques Chailley. If that's a bit much for you, I was always a big fan of the English National Opera Guides. Each one usually has a complete libretto plus a collection of good, intelligent essays. They can be hard to find in libraries and book stores, but the publisher now prints on demand.

I saw "Brokeback" again yesterday, and found it just as admirable and emotionally devastating as the first time. Since it won the Oscar for best soundtrack, I listened more carefully. The now-famous tune that you hear in every parody of the movie makes a late appearance in the movie. You only hear it a couple of times, and not in the places you'd expect. The soundtrack is really admirably understated, just beautifully done.

Another thing I hadn't noticed was how the much-discussed Thanksgiving scene at Jack's house follows directly one the one where Ennis rebuffs Jack after the divorce. Jack had never been completely involved in his family life (I noticed how often he's shot standing awkwardly in a doorway, not fully at home in his own house), his heart being elsewhere. But now, a life with Ennis plainly being impossible, he angrily claims as his own the only home he has.

What a master Ang Lee is. In the first minutes there's no dialogue and no real action, but with a few perfectly judged strokes he delineates the very different personalities of Jack and Ennis, and already shows a relationship developing between them.