SandyMcKean

......so Sandy what then can we take as being Goldberg's motives for wading into the debate and the petition?

The only way to know her motives is from her words (as is true for any of us at any time). Do you have a quote of hers where she explains her motives? If so, I'd like to read that. The world would be a happier place if every time the question of "what then can we take as being XXX's motives" comes up, the answer to that question were to be found in the words of the person who motives are being examined.

.....as opposed I daresay to a kind and loving rape?

(Sorry dirac, I must answer this misconception somehow. I will do it as briefly and without inflamation as possible.) SimonG, I request that you read my words more carefully. I never created the possibility of a "kind and loving rape". What I did say was that there are few, if any, crimes other than ripe where the same physical actions (physical in the sense of not considering any internal emotional, mental, or feeling aspects, but considering only the physical actions themselves) can be felt by those involved as either a crime (rape) or an expression of love (love making). I never used the words "kind and loving rape", or any words approximating such words -- indeed those words make no sense to me, they are a complete contradiction in terms.

Sandy, I see that you want to split semantic hairs, give opinion and argue the issue....

This is a good example of the very thing I am talking about. You seem to know my motives. How can you know what they are? You haven't asked, but I assure you I am not interested in splitting semantic hairs. I actually think that even world peace hangs in the balance of the issue of assuming the motivations of others. In my world, I hardly consider that a game of semantics.

....but we can make judgments based on what they do and say...

I couldn't agree more. Indeed, I think that is my entire point. I await the posting of the actual words of someone like Goldberg so we could have a meaningful discussion as to what she does and says. My objection is about speculating as to why others say and do things. Perhaps it is too bad we can't read minds, but we can't; so the only avenue we have is to ask others and then to listen to what they say. (Of course society must make exceptions to this wise principle. For example, if you are on a jury, you might have to make a judgment about why someone did something in spite of what they say when asked; but look at how carefully the society manages this exception. Our laws, courtroom procedures, "beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion, and so forth are all in place because we as a society have learned how dangerous it is to make judgments about the motivations of others beyond what they say.

.....where professions show almost an official solidarity with members of their profession without respect to the facts of a case........It appears that in this "free Roman" petition by actors and film people, this is exactly what is at play. And so those who live by the sword must realize that they too, can die by the sword.

Do you have any evidence that this is what is motivating the petition signers? Is this pure speculation on your part? Without any direct evidence how would you know what the internal motivations of other people are?

Most who comment, including myself are not up to speed on all the facts and offer opinions based on media supplied information which they happen to consume. That's the nature of opining.

I don't accept that this is "the nature of opining." I have opinions, lots of them , and I don't always do the best possible job of doing research before I express my opinion (I wish I did), but I guarantee you that it is quite possible to have opinions while staying within the facts that you do know, and without simply regurgitating what the media says.

In a related thought, if I give my opinion on, say, the quality of a ballet performance, I am free to say pretty much whatever I like since I am simply expressing my own personal sense of things without requiring me to be a mind reader. But giving an opinion as to why and how others think the way they do, or why others do what they do, is a waste of time IMO, and can even be harmful. There is only one way to find out why people think what they think, or do what they do, and that is to ask them.

I saw Carrie Imler as Lady C a couple of times.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when Q&A members would comment about how they love this production because it's so natural and because there's no pantomime.

It's not just the audience members that make this observation. Interestingly, both Josh Spell and Kylee Kitchens said the same thing last night at the Q&A when asked how this type of ballet was different from other more traditional ballets. Peter Boal agreed.

I think you have a point too Helene. So how to I resolve that? Here's my view (maybe we don't see this all that differently in the final analysis). Maillot's R&J does not use pantomime. I say that because traditional ballet pantomime gestures are very specific and pretty much always mean the same thing (pointing to the ring finger always means, very specifically, a marriage and always relates to the immediate plot). Maillot's gestures such as the swimming hands are far more generalized and perhaps can be better described as thematic movements. The swimming hands do relate to the theme of 2 people in love (after all, that is the basic theme of the Shakespeare play), but the swimming hands don't just mean R and J's love in a specific way. It is used in many, many ways by many, many characters (I sound like Speight Jenkins here ). Sometimes it is just the love between R and J, such as when we first see them alone after the ball as they stand far upstage bathed in a spotlight. Other times that movement is done by just one person and often means a love forbidden because it is a love of the 2 warring houses of Montague and Capulet such as the Friar often means when he uses it. In at least one instance I think it is used to symbolize the Friar's plan to bring peace to the 2 houses by marrying the 2 lovers. In another situation R or J will do the movement but with only 1 hand, and then it invariably means s/he is thinking of the other but is separated from their lover and alone. The motion is used in many ways with many different meanings but all within the theme centered on the unity that's possible btwn 2 entities if love is present. There are even times when these gestures hardly relate to the plot of the moment at all, but rather simply express the thoughts of the character at that moment.

My opinion is that the use of this type of thematic gesture is far different than traditional ballet gestures, but OTOH, as you say Helene, it is going too far to say Maillot's ballet has no pantomime in it. Better to say that balletic pantomime has been highly transformed into something more modern and more psychological just as Maillot's choreography itself is based on classical ballet training and steps, but completely transformed into something with more everyday human emotion and action (e.g., natural gait, heel-to-toe instead of ballet's toe-to-heel).

To me BOTH points of view that pantomime is not used and yet that it exists in the ballet are valid. It just depends on where you are standing.

Alongside the swimming motif (two hands tracing a series of s curves working in parallel), Juliet uses her hand almost like a hunting dog in the first big duet with Romeo -- it searches him out like a beacon and leads her all over the place before she finally gets to him.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when Q&A members would comment about how they love this production because it's so natural and because there's no pantomime.

I am always struck by that "Juliet uses her hand almost like a hunting dog in the first big duet with Romeo" gesture. I've decided that Maillot means it as a metaphor for Juliette's heart running away with her. That is, her fluttering hand is her wildly beating heart. She herself is scared of the emotion, and she herself is lead all over the place as her heart runs the gamete from fear to flat out caution-to-the-wind passion. That fluttering hand (her heart) eventually leads her inescapably back to Romeo where it (the heart) caresses him and then locks onto him in a final irretrievable commitment to love regardless of the consequences.

If I'm right, I think it is a masterful image.

Maybe someone can confirm this for me . . . Friday night when Mercutio kissed Lindsi Dec's character which leads to the fateful fight, it looked to me like she acted angry and egged on the fight. Saturday night when he kissed her, it looked like she enjoyed it, which made Tybalt angry and led to the fight. I thought it was interesting that two different reactions could lead to the same result. Did I really see it, or did I make it up in my mind?

Here's what I think I saw last night:

Lindsi Dec's initial reaction was one of surprise with perhaps mild disgust (not unlike most of the women of either house that Mercutio pounces on with one of his playful kisses). But soon she becomes angry but still titillated. I watched her via my binoculars for 2+ minutes starting at the actual kiss. She runs around talking to her female friends both nervously laughing (the titillation I suspect) and clearly angry. When the violence starts in earnest she appears quite pleased that Mercutio is being held to account for what she seems to consider an insult.

So my short answser to your question is: I thought Lindsi's basic emotion was anger tinged with revenge (but a bit thrilled too).

Here is an interesting discussion on the matter:

"Interesting" is a word I use when I don't want to commit myself. I will attempt to be a little more specific. I thought this Huffington Post blog article to be little more than a rant, as well as being factually incorrect on at least one point.

P.S. Please don't interpret my remarks as somehow "pro" Polanski. My beef is that we need less ranting and more rational factual discussion of controversial issues in this country.

Your father was a wise man, Drew.

I second that thought.

Hans, I still think you have to be careful. If someone beats someone up, I can't think of any other possibility other than a cruel act has been committed (to use one of your words). However, assessing rape can be a tricky issue. The same exact sequence of physical events (assuming no overt physical violence exists) can in one instance be a wonderful thing, and in another, a horrible thing (and certainly a cruel thing). Frankly, I can't think of any other crime for which this is true. Even more problematical, there are rarely 3rd party witnesses to these events. This is one crime (but perhaps there are others) where one needs to be exceedingly careful. The consequences resulting from the same set of actions can be night and day depending on what word someone picks to refer to the events. We all have an obligation to insure that the "right" words are used, and then an equally serious obligation to insure that the appropriate consequences result once we've determined what actually happened and therefore what word to use to describe what happened.

P.S. Note I am talking generally here as you did Hans in the previous post. In the Polanski case one fact we know for sure is that the female involved was 13 years old. That in itself heavily skews the considerations, and certainly determines that some crime was committed (once one leaves out the qualifiers).

[Later edit.....OOPS, Hans seems to have deleted his post to which I was replying.]

I don't think one would be unjustified in using the word 'brutal', but of course, that is only my opinion.

And you're entitled to your opinion as we all are. I would probably lean that way too, but in this case I don't even have an opinion since I know too little about the case.

What I am willing to have an opinion about is that hounding someone around the globe for decades better be justified by truly horrific crimes when you consider the kinds of monumental pain and suffering we humans seem to tolerate under the banner of "national security" or "national ethnic purity" or even the availability of cheap goods.

Most of the performing arts I love often seem to focus on redemption. Perhaps we need more of that in the world instead of just on the stage -- the stage that all on this board cherish so highly.

(I guess I'm in a mood today ).

.....but I do think you're right to question these terms, because what Mel and others are talking about, with 'mobocracy', etc., is still what has to not prevail.....

I think my sensitivity to these distinctions stems from our current political climate in this country. For many years I have listened to far-right wing radio as a source of entertainment (I am quite liberal myself). These talk shows seemed rather harmless to me at the time. But in the last 2 or 3 years, I have become concerned. Not just that the far-right commentators are showing decided lack of voracity and discrimination, but now I am finding that far-left blogs and even just-left commentators are indulging in the same sort of practices. Inflammatory words are used, and claims are made with little regard to doing the difficult journalistic work it takes to remove reasonable doubt from one's claims.

It is my opinion that we all have to take a stand against this indiscriminate use of words and conclusions. I fear marginal minds may feel justified in taking horrific action feeling that these inflammatory statements represent reality and that they must take violent action to restore the America they profess to love.

Polanski was charged on six counts....

I apologize. I "mis-spoke". I should have said Polanski was convicted of "unlawful sexual intercourse" rather than my sloppy charged with "unlawful sexual intercourse". In terms of other crimes he might have once been charged with, I continue to believe in the wisdom that one is innocent until proven guilty.

And having sex with a 13 year old that has been plied with chemicals but was still protesting has really no parallel with Romeo and Juliet or any other teenage romantic episodes.

My point exactly. These types of situations differ greatly. This is why I think it unwise to automatically prefix the word "brutal" to every one of these situations. And BTW, from what I observe, the use of chemicals such as alcohol is quite common in "teenage romantic episodes".

For 32 years he's been evading punishment for a brutal rape (Salon had the details yesterday) of a 13-year old girl.

We really ought to try to use accurate words when discussing a sensitive issue like this.

Whether you accept it or not, Polanski was charged with "unlawful sexual intercourse".....not any other crime. You can't now use vigilanty tactics to charge him for crimes beyond those he was charged with. Furthermore, I don't see how any of us can determine if the word "brutal" is appropriate or not. I suppose we could agree that all rape is brutal, but if we take that tack, then we are left with no ability to make distinctions. For example, if I had had sex with a 17 year old girl when I was 18, technically, I could be charged with statutory rape even if all parties were consentual (not an unheard of event in the high schools of today or even in my day many decades ago). Should we then say that my actions necessarily would have been "brutal"? Not that most rapes aren't brutal, they probably are, but you can't use the word "brutal" in all cases automatically or the word would cease to have meaning in these situations.

I'm struck that as I read this thread I also happen to be attending several performances of Maillot's R&J at PNB. At the 2 performances I've seen so far, should I view the bedroom scene as the brutal rape of a 14 year old girl?? I didn't feel that way; and I suspect no one else in the audience felt that way either. If the word "brutal" ought always apply, it seems I would have no choice but to see the scene that way. It seems to me one would need to know a great deal about the actual situation to be able to make that determination. As I watch the ballet, and actually see the circumstances presented, the word "brutal" does not seem to apply.

P.S. Please don't think I am excusing Polanski's behavior or its seriousness (or excusing the brutality that men too often inflict on women around the world) because I don't. I just think we should refrain from adding our own spin to a complex situation. Leave the judgement to the jury.

SanderO, I suggest you refresh yourself on the facts of the case. This case isn't straight forward.

I say leave the guy alone.....enough, all ready. Water under the bridge. The long arm of the law reaches across the ocean and across the decades to mete out justice? Meanwhile, Dafur and Gitmo continue. (Even Polanski's victim has asked that the case be dismissed.)

Forget the "sometimes" part.....

Isn't this situation true for any collectable since the supply is fixed? If the demand goes up, then the price must go up too. (Van Gogh paintings go for considerably more .)

Chocomel,

You say you don't know much about ballet (and neither do I, BTW -- at least compared to most on this board), but my guess is you know more than you feel comfortable giving yourself credit for . I say that your observations are spot on! (Besides everyone's impressions are interesting and valuable.)

I've only seen Carla at the dress, so I'm holding off comment until I see her on Friday and Saturday later this week. I did see Nakamura/Moore last Friday, and my reaction fits very well with your comments. Both James and Kaori did extremely well, but the competition from both the past (Noe) and the present (Carla and Lucien) is just too strong. I did think James did some fabulous dancing, especially from a technical point of view, but this ballet depends so heavily on character and acting that technical dancing takes a back seat. Besides Lucien is unbelievable. He's Michael Jordon in this part. How can anyone compete? One new wrinkle is that my wife said on Friday that she found James/Kaori more believable as lovers than Lucien and Noe. I don't find that to be so, but my wife is very visually tuned so I guess she just liked the physical "look" of the James/Kaori couple.

You mention CARRIE IMLER. Indeed, indeed. IMHO, Carrie is the the most accomplished dancer in the company -- bar none. No one has her range, no one executes on all levels, in all types of ballet, like Carrie. I've only seen her Lady C so far (the nurse comes this week, in fact, I am going Saturday night primarily just to see that). It was Ariana Lallone and Lousie Nadeau last year. They are both great (I saw Ariana at the dress), but Carrie tops them both -- not in every particular, but as always with Carrie, she added power and character to every moment of her dancing from the grief scenes to the seductive scenes, not to mention her flawless dancing. Also I can't resist mentioning how great Carrie is looking. Congratulations Carrie!

I will look again this week at that Dec/Poretta kiss you mention. My memory is that Dec was disgusted at the kiss. It makes sense that she would be since she is a Capulet and Mercutio is a Montague. I note that even when Mercutio kisses a Montague, the woman is put off by his audacity (e.g., Poretta and Rausch in the opening scene.....Rausch is titillated, but put off too). In addition, remember that Mercutio also kisses Tybalt at one point!!

I loved being able to compare them.

AND.......................??

I just noticed an interesting page on PNB's new website. It lists all the ballets PNB considers to be in the active rep with the date the ballet was first performed. Worth a look!

http://www.pnb.org/AboutPNB/ActiveRep/

Here are the apprentices who have been promoted to the corps de ballet:

Andrew Bartee

Amanda Clark

Kyle Davis

Emma Love

Margaret Mullin

Sean Rollofson

(Taken from sandik's post......thanks Sandi.)

I haven't seen anything in the media, so I just called PNB's offices to get the news. Here are the promotions announced last night:

Maria Chapman to principal

Karel Cruz to principal

Lindsi Dec to soloist

There were several apprentice to corps promotions but I did not take the time to ask for that list.

[later edit.....I now see that sandik posted the full promotion list as an add-on to another topic. I will leave this post here in case there are others like me who don't connect that topic title with the promotions news.]

DRESS REHEARSAL

I went last night with anticipation and some "fear and trembling" . Why "fear and trembling"?? Would I be disappointed because maybe, just maybe, I burned myself out on this piece last year since I basically flipped out over it? What would it be like without Noelani Pantastico? Would Carla Korbes blow me away, or not measure up to the stratospheric performances that Noe pulled out of infinity last year?

Well, it was sort of "all of the above". First off, I typically don't like dress rehearsals. There is something missing in a dress rehearsal -- I suspect: the magical communication and inspiration btwn audience and cast. But I couldn't resist going to this one, and I kept my expectations low. Act I did not thrill me. It was nice, but it did not reach inside my soul. Carla was good (very, very good), and Lucien Postlewaite was his 110% full out, actor par excellence self, but no one can do the "sweet innocent" Juliette like Noelani did. In addition, having seen this ballet 5 times last year, the fight scenes etc were too familiar by now.

Then came the "Balcony" scene. The bar rose. The tension mounted. Carla and Lucien "found" each other. I started to get excited. Then BAM....Act III. I am still shaking. What Carla and Lucien created on that stage in Act III, in a rehearsal no less, transcended. This was theater at its best. Carla simply owns ACT III. This is a must see.

As I think back on this piece, as done by PNB (and most importantly as done by these PNB dancers), the inherent drama of the choreography, which depends on acting skill as much (or more) than on dancing skill, makes the personalities of the dancers vital to what you will see (Balanchine must be rolling over in his grave ). For those that know Noelani Pantastico, she comes across as just about the sweetest person you could imagine. Aurora fits her like a glove. She is a maiden. OTOH, Carla Korbes is powerful, feisty, and sensual. She is a woman. So for me, the 1st half (up to the bedroom scene) of PNB's R&J belongs to Noe, but the 2nd half belongs to Carla. Both, of course, are wonderful, but it is an exquisite treat to have had two such accomplished actor/dancers at PNB for this piece. How lucky we are!

This says nothing about Kaori Nakamora and her James Moore Romeo. I'll have to wait until Friday night to see that. I hope Noe and Carla have left room for yet another magnificent performance. Frankly, I expect Kaori to blow us all away yet again. Her precise dancing, her stamina, her dedication has to produce something superb. But will she triumph as this iconic character? Will she have the emotional range to create yet another superb Maillot Juliette? I think she will. I suspect that when Kaori breaks out of her crystalline shell of perfect dancing and finds the actor in herself....LOOK OUT! As I've said before, I think we got a taste of that possibility in her performance in Tharp's "Afternoon Ball" PNB commissioned last year. I noted that Kaori was in the audience last night, and up on stage every time the cast took notes. I think she knows the challenge she has set for herself. I, for one, am planning to be wow-ed once again.

Fall weather and ballet in Seattle.......about as close to paradise as it gets!

P.S. The heart of this piece, as in all forms of R&J, is Juliette, but I must tip my hat to Lucien Postlewaite. Does the guy ever have a bad minute? In some sense it is he who has created these Juliettes. What an amazing performer. And as long as I'm crediting the men: Olivier Wevers! World Class! Last night, for the first time really, I understood how the dancer playing the Friar drives this entire production. Not just for the fact that Maillot sets the entire ballet as a sort of remembrance by the Friar as he is racked with guilt for his role in this tragedy, but for the competence of the dancer playing this part since this dancer sets the tone for the entire work. I can't imagine how anyone, anywhere, can compete with Olivier's Friar.

I don't mind the visual minimalism........Onstage, it works better in a small European-sized opera house than in a barn like the Met.

Enlightening thought. As usual bart, you give me something to think about (not to mention your balanced perspective).

Looking carefully at the photo, I find it interesting that they seem to be doing a "theatrical kiss".....where they miss each other's lips.