papeetepatrick

THIS is important, vis-a-vis MCB especially. We New Yorkers very easily fall back on our 'centrality' and, even when we begin to look at regional companies and less-glamorous international companies, we still know there's NYCB and ABT and the top companies finally get here, the Kirov in 2008 and POB in 2012, etc. Is the casting at NYCB just like it used to be, only a week or so in advance? If so, even that's useless, as it doesn't have any of the exoticism of the 70s and 80s when Balanchine did this, with the net result of making Suzanne seem like THE ULTIMATE BALLET STAR, on the world's most rarefied pedestal, among other things (that's okay, it was fascinating actually, but that's all over, couldn't work more than once anyway). But we have our own provincialism too, and even if MCB is producing work that is comparable or better, in some cases, than, say, NYCB, we're just not going to know about them the way we should except when they're dancing here, unless we're really following closely. Now, when I went to see PNB last year at the Joyce, I didn't really go looking for any stars (even knowing about Korbes) so much as I just wanted to see the company. Although the program was an incredible disappointment, I still could tell what the company was capable of. But that's not really enough. In the end, MCB and PNB and some of the others are still called 'regional companies' at least by the nomenclatures, spoken or unspoken, even of BTers, so they are not household words. I wouldn't know of Deanna Seay were I not on BT, but I would definitely know about Ashley Bouder and Diana Vishneva. That's just the way it goes. So these top-quality Balanchine-star-run companies should realize that they are not running the New York City Ballet even if their products may sometimes even be better. And at least Balanchine was promoting HIS ballets against 'too much star cultism', whereas his former stars running companies largely based on his work can't really do that very effectively--they're not at the center in any way that Balanchine himself was, so they might as well realize that people in other parts of the country don't even know what 'anti-star' would be about. As if 'too many big stars' in Seattle or Miami was a serious problem???? Helloooo???? I'm afraid it is not. Therefore, some dancers who are major talents and have star quality ought to be promoted and made more so. There is hardly a worry that they are going to become seriously populated cults. And as ksk04 and others have said, I'd go to any of these companies without looking to see specific stars, but maybe not continuously: I went to Los Angeles Ballet and PNB just to see these companies, and would do the same for MCB, SFB (both of them), without thinking at first about the particular dancers (which I would never do for ABT or Kirov), but I wouldn't keep doing it. I doubt I'd do it more than once, and if I were a visitor in one of those cities, I wouldn't go to see their companies again, if I'd already seen them in New York, if I didn't know to expect something more special, e.g., if I were in Seattle, I'd definitely want to know something about what I was going to see, demand a Balanchine, and get recommendations, after seeing that unfortunate affair last January.

I knew I remembered him in ingenue things I saw as a child. These were 'Swiss Family Robinson' and 'Spencer's Mountain'--very nice movies for kids--and some other TV, I'm sure. Never cared at all for 'Hawaii Five-O', except when they hired Bill Smith for a year or two. Of that obsolete kind of single-story-episode cop series (ended, I think, when 'Hill Street Blues' started serializing), I thought a few were enjoyable, like 'Policewoman', but 'Hawaii Five-O' was strictly formula and mind-numbing IMO.

Thanks, abatt! It was only two weeks ago that I saw it, and they hadn't quite got ready to announce it yet, although they gave me indications twice it might close in New York. If I could have waited, I could have seen him do it, but I could hardly have been happier with what I did see. Frankly, Usnavi is not that big a role in terms of aggressively hogging the spotlight (this surprised me), although I imagine Miranda will give it much more electricity (Kyle Beltran was good, but not as high-energy as one might have wanted )--esp. since this will pack the houses again as the show closes (I wouldn't be surprised if those 2 weeks are already sold out.) The roles of Nina, Benny and Vanessa are quite as prominent (and just watching it, I might have thought Nina's role was given the most attention.) Also, Usnavi doesn't have very explicit romantic scenes , although he is in love with Vanessa and they are in the number 'The Club; and he and Daniela help her out with money and co-signing for her Village apt. In other words, the real romantic scene is with Nina and Benny, not Usnavi and Vanessa, which was sort of unusual.

Not announcing casting never was anything to me except something at NYCB that Balanchine could pull off and that proved his point--to take the ballet seriously enough not to require having to know who was dancing. I remember the period well, but I always bought tickets only when the casting was finally announced--at least a week or two before the performance--knowing full well that I wanted to know. There was still some mystery in 'having to wait to know', but I don't see any point in it anywhere anymore. If someone has to cancel because of injury, then that's the case with anything and anybody anywhere. I think Villella's practice sounds a bit wishful, although I don't know the territory. People always wanted to see specific dancers even when there was a stern 'no-star' attitude. It probably worked for some people who took it as a kind of religion, but I thought it created a mystique during that one period of NYCB, although I never paid any attention to it in a practical sesne at all even then, it just made me have to wait longer to get tickets to see who I wanted to. Which means, of course, that there was an 'anti-star' attitude only to a certain extent; not to mention, that even when it was at its most operative, in the 60s,70s, and early 80s at NYCB, it was only meaningful in a real way to some people, as well as the fact that it never concealed even for a second that fact that NYCB was a company FULL of stars--although I will definitely concede that that it made NYCB's stars seems like 'different kinds of stars'. It was just affordable then, and somewhat interesting. By now, it seems nostalgic in a rather empty way, unless there's some practical consideration. I don't remember ABT ever doing it, and it would be ridiculous if they did. If they did, I'd never buy a ticket, and the recent thread on the 2011 spring season is all about people wanting to see Osipova this, Vishneva that, Hallberg this, Corella not dancing too much, etc. As for box office, there can really be little argument: It could only enhance sales (or it certainly could not lower them), because even if balletgoers were still primarily going for 'Swan Lake', 'Giselle' or 'Jewels', there would be still more going to see certain dancers. There would be no balletgoers going for the pure excitement of having no idea who they'd be seeing (or this demographic would be so negligible as to be invisible.) Maybe Villella can afford to do this, though, even though it seems, frankly, inconsiderate, since it may well cause inconvenience. It doesn't seem out of character, reminding me of how you can see almost nothing of his own dancing on tape or video, due to his restriction. BT is not sufficient by itself to cover nearly all balletgoers, as far as I know. And casting changes at NYCB would be no different from any other company, for the most past, unless there is some tradition of changing them much more frequently. In any case, I think the matter was more 'whether casts are announced or not', not changes. I don't think 'late announcement' ever had anything to do with 'allowing for quick casting changes', if that was ever a practice (maybe it was, I don't know. Even so, it seems like a practice that ought to be abandoned across-the-board. I can't see a single advantage to it.)

Walking back from the Lower East Side from getting a flu shot at Gouverneur, I realized that I had gotten my perspective all confused. The tall building that went up in the last year and that you see walking down 6th Avenue (and the very top out my south window) is Trump SoHo, a luxury hotel: http://www.elitemeetings.com/property/trump-soho-new-york/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_SoHo It's very impressive, but I had the hardest time keeping it in view once on Canal Street; it's a lot more uptown (between Spring and Dominick Streets), but there are often views in which it seems next to 7 World Trade Center, so this was interesting for a cityscape-lover. I was sure it wasn't 1 World Trade, but not that I was going to find the skyscraper (it half drove me crazy, I know this seems a little extreme). So I just started at 1 World Trade, which had progressed as much as I said it had, but does look like this by now, and that IS 7 World Trade right next to it (or rather, to the far right, not the old building in the middle, which miraculously escaped the attacks): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:One_WTC_tower_construction_progress_Sept_2010.JPG The problem with perspective and depth perception was so severe that I first thought this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Spruce_Street might be the 'magical Oz building'. I'd never seen it and it's a luxury rental high-rise between Beekman Street and Spruce Street a few blocks from City Hall and Park Row. It turns out to be a building by Gehry, although I just noticed the influence when seeing it, didn't think it was his. Everybody has been influenced by those asymmetrical foldings and making one floor hang a bit over the other, so the style is found in many places, not just Gehry's work. This was pretty impressive, and at first I thought that this was the 'mystery building', and was frankly surprised when I found the Trump Soho--there aren't very many buildings that tall in that particular area, so things are getting even more opaque, I guess. It is the first building I've been able to see come above the lower-lying ones in the Village and SoHo since the old World Trade Center, so I must not have thought any other was probably, and couldn't tell the distance by looking. But 1 World Trade doesn't have any glass on it, so I should have known that that was faster building progress than is even possible now, and buildings are erected in 20% of the time they used to be if they're not held up by costs (1 World Trade has been, and may not top out till 2013.) Edited to add: That was the 2008 prediction, the 2013 'topping out', now it's been moved up to late next year, 2011, with occupancy beginning in 2013.

It says that the 'all-natural' ones are not, and they're not. But the serious Permacide would probably be useful for hotel rooms, which you aren't going to call in professionals for anyway. Nothing gets rid of a serious infestation other than professionals with several weapons at their disposal. Otherwise, for hotels, use the hard poisons, some of which are available at hardware stores, or just don't go anywhere at all that you're suspicious of, I guess. I see that having been through the horror of the reality makes you more relaxed about the rest of it. But the 'all-natural' ones are indeed no good. otoh, some of the pyrethrin sprays, if you use them judiciously, will kill them locally, which is what the hotel issue is about; the bigger issue is up to the management if enough people complain.

Yes. I saw him do 'Mozartiana' with Farrell and later 'Valse Triste' with McBride. As well as many other times as well, but those I remember best. He had this very understated sensuality.

Drew, thank you so much for taking the time, as I am quite sure now I will try to see it next spring (I just checked the schedules, and it's not going to be done as far as scheduling has been completed, that being Jan., 2011.) That's beautifully written as well as evocative enough for me to understand something of what you mean by that 'freedom' and 'dreamlike logic' even if I'll change my mind when I see the actual production. The 'way one's body feels lighter and stretchier in the water' actually reminded me of Proust's long pages about the waves 'like custard' at Balbec (and I had had that same image at the ocean just before reading that passage)--not that Proust has anything to do with 'a sailor and some girls' kind of story, of course, which is more theatrical or cinematic. I guess this is the clincher: I thought you meant that primarily, and that is the kind of thing I'm looking for in all the Arts--at least that sometimes they must be able to achieve a 'world' that is new. This would be the thing that give the most 'hope' to me in your idea that ballet may be on the verge of something that creates 'larger growth and excitement', and perhaps this ballet is a prelude (or one of them) to that. That IS what we used to see from Graham and Balanchine, and we're not seeing this that often, something so singular that you can't miss it (btw, it seemed to me that even Macaulay had not been quite able to miss it, no matter how much he kept trying to say 'trivial'.) And finding 'a ballet world like no other' is also not retrograde, that is what was always valuable found to be discoverable in a new age. And this for me is a kind of 'gold standard' of what must be found in opera, theater, music, literature, all of the arts, if they are really to have life that is more than just re-hashing (no matter how well) the old things of another age. I'll have to wait to see it before I really know what you mean by that, but I'm quite excited all the same. I got the feeling that it was already generating significant interest, and that I can be confident we'll see it again in the spring season (if not in February even, that's not up yet.)

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/oct/22/la-stupendissima/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/arts/dance/01gala.html http://thefastertimes.com/dance/2010/05/05/on-second-thought/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/arts/dance/20music.html Drew--I just caught up a bit on 'Namouna', which your remarks about have interested me. These reviews (even Macaulay's, which is less impressed) all made it sound like something I'd very much like to see, and might agree with your assessment of its importance. otoh, if it's a 'one-off', I don't care so much (I hope not, but one is more than most, you know). I doubt you have to worry that Osipova will be just another 'generic star', because there are plenty of others dancing now who go way beyond that, but this matter of a new ballet that does sound as interesting as 'Namouna' sounds right up my alley of the kind of thing that always gives me hope that a fine piece sometimes springs up out of nowhere or unexpectedly (it would be the latter in Mr. Ratmansky's case, even if it's his masterpiece). I did a search here at BT and found little, but it was probably written about in the spring season reviews. Would still like to hear more about your impressions of the ballet, as it sounds as though you think it is not just 'good for our time', but rather comparable to the works of those departed masters we still lament.

I think what you are reacting to is that there is too much irony everywhere, and it is sickening and sometimes even seems that one will be suffocated by it. I probably feel much the same, so that when I do find something that has real wit and direct affection, etc., (as in that B'way show I saw last week) I myself become very defensive about those very 'epiphanies' that Mel first referenced on this thread, wanting to hold onto them, since I've found that 'ah, not ONLY irony is alive'. I think it's more 'television and the internet' than particular cities, although I know San Francisco is supposed to be a world of its own.

I think that may be the pattern in all the arts, some kind of epiphany, as I described 'In the Heights' within the seemingly 'dead world' (or maybe 'impotent' is more what it is, except for the cash cows) of the Broadway musical. So that the 'every ten years' thing has a dark side to it as well as a hopeful one. There's no longer a strong tradition in any of these traditional arts in terms of newly created works compared to past periods (or there isn't now, and with media and technology not at all threatened, no, not even by nuclear holocaust, the knowledge is already there, then we're not going to go back to any neo-past periods except very briefly; sometimes shoppers 'go back' to brick-and-mortar shopping, but it doesn't stop the climb of online shopping except the speed of it), and there are definitely no producers of dance like Graham and Balanchine, opera composers like Verdi and Wagner, or even musical comedy as with Rodgers or Gershwin or Jule Styne or Harold Arlen. This is okay, it's what we've got. There will be the performance tradition continuing, and that even has expanded, with regional companies having propagated all over the country and the world, and great technical dancers like Osipova and Vishneva and Gomes and Hallberg forming such a glut of superlative brilliance that people are even worried that they 'might get bored' by too much exposure to 'too few great guest ballerinas' at ABT: Worry about NYCB, they have very few guest dancers, I think I once saw Corella there, and I never know Aurelie Dupont was there till after the fact, it seems; but that's beside the main point . But anyway, that's not bad on the performance end. But we do live in a world in which the 'end of history' may be partly a false assumption; on the other hand, people weren't even talking about the end of history until Fukuyama coined the phrase. Now's there's even a glassware store on Hudson Street called that. But as a 'living force', in which people are looking forward to the next season as a 'big new thing to watch for', I don't see it as happening ever again. All the more reason why the epiphanies really do seem all the more startling and surprising and stunning--but the very sparseness of 'genius' in the older sense is something we've gotten used to, because it's just that way (maybe some will say film hasn't exhausted itself to quite this degree), and this sparseness will have a trace of nostalgia to it, no matter how great the new mutation, just due to the fact that it IS so rare. It doesn't matter whether this is 'bad' or 'good', but just that it's probably inevitable. Without wit or gravity? You don't think that can be disagreed with? That can be disagreed with. It does remind me of some of Macaulay's pronouncements, though, although I doubt that you mean that a 'Mozartiana' emerging or not will determine whether we have only 'a sort of pre-emptive self-irony'. What do you mean by 'winded world'?

"Raw, rugged, ruthless drama of a man who gambled his luck, his love, his life for the treachery of a girl's lips!!" I love it. I watched this a few years ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it, although I never think of it, and can't recall too much of it now. Mainly the opening, I think, isn't Burt at a diner? And Ava definitely very good at this kind of part. I didn't like it when she did those big costume things a few years later, and she seems bored out of her skull in them too. I don't think I've ever seen Lancaster in anything in which I didn't like him, including when he does the aging-adolescent in the Perrys' 'The Swimmer' in the late 60s. IN some ways, I like the 1964 version better, the girl's part is bigger, and Angie Dickinson is perfect in it; so is Cassavetes. Ronald Reagan's last movie, and what a cast: Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson, John Cassavetes, Clu Gulager, Claude Akins, Norman Fell, Ronald Reagan.

California, don't fool with the 'eco-friendly' bedbug sprays, they are totally worthless and don't work. I'm not sure what that little one on amazon is, although it says 'non-toxic'. Well, you want toxic, you just use less of it and aerate rooms. The strong ones you can get at hardware stores have pyrethrins in them, and they are somewhat nauseating, but they do work as preventive unless the bugs have really gotten control of the territory. When I then got professionals working, there is Permacide for the bugs and Bedlam for the eggs, which they tell you to use alternately, but you can use them however you want; the companies do a lot to try to scare you, and they can be very irresponsible. I agree you can't be obsessive about this, even having been through it and the whole horror it is (you don't quit thinking you're seeing them for months after they're gone.) But I never think about worrying about theaters or even movies, and wouldn't even now. As for I'd say no, that's being obsessive--they can just as easily be on the carpet on the floor. Cconcentrate on hotel rooms, them forget about it. I'm sure Koch and Met Theaters are going to ensure that everything is 100% cleared there, and I even doubt that there's much serious infestation in movie theaters.

After the first treatments, the bugs are neutered and therefore won't be reproducing, but they're still in a form recognizable as repulsive and crawling, however more slowly, feebly, and now bloodless. I called about this, and the 'trained technician's assistant' said 'Oh! Those are the NYMPHS!' This was maybe the nadir of the mental depression that accompanies: I thought "Honey, I am in no mood to discuss 'Les Sylphides' and/or 'Ondine' with you."

I remember as a kid hearing of the film 'Nothing But a Man', but had never heard of Lincoln at the time, and never knew she was in it till her death; in fact, I had no idea she'd ever starred in a film. I just watched it, and it's a beautiful, deeply moving film. From 1964, with Ivan Dixon as Duff, Abbey as his young wife. They're marvelous in this film that comes from the heart of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s. It's conflicted, and bristling with racial tension, but it's more gentle and poetic than violent and you're even a bit surprised that there is no sudden outburst (I was, as well, surprised, when it ended.) Julius Harris as Duff's sad, alcoholic father is excellent, and Gloria Foster especially outstanding as the tough, but kind woman who looks after him. It's a beautiful movie, and I've never heard anyone say anything about it since way back when it came out. Lincoln plays a preacher's daughter, gentle and lovely. The black-and-white photography is very beautiful in a melancholy way. I strongly recommend this film. Just looked up Dixon, who himself died in 2008.

It's much less simple than that. All the exterminators disagree with what methods to use--and one or two treatments is never sufficient: It almost always requires as many as five or six, because of the eggs. They are in floorboards, in crevices of furniture as well as the upholstery, etc. and can live for 18 months without feeding, just for starters. You don't throw out infested bedding as well, new bedding will be re-infested immediately, obviously-you cover it, as I mentioned, with protective zip-up mattress covers and you leave them there. It may be relatively simple in a free-standing house, but even then I've heard reports of people having to have 6-8 treatments over long periods like I did. In a multi-dwelling building, literally every unit has to be checked--in mine, the sniffing dogs found about 15 that had signs of them, although only about 4 had serious problems. And they can literally be brought in from anywhere. But all the different exterminators will tell you that 'there is only one way to kill them'. Action Pest was good because they even 'shot up' the mattresses with hypodermic guns, used foggers, and chemicals and steaming of curtains, etc. That they don't cause disease is true, of course, but it is much worse than any trouble with cockroaches or the occasional mouse--because there is no in-between state: You're either infested or you're not. I had to even have one final treatment in April of this year, because the woman who lives above me claimed to find two or three in her bathroom (where they're not supposed to be); and it is a LOT of trouble every time, because they give you extremely complicated prep instructions and make you dry-clean everything (even the ones that don't make you do idiotic things like cover your books in plastic.) And the better exterminators will not just come in and spray an 'unprepped' area.

Of course it won't 'counteract' it, and it's small potatoes compared to the political ambition and the vastness of funding there--of course, if one is a Tea Party-er, one doesn't even want it 'counteracted' *(I doubt many at BT are, but there are probably some). Which doesn't mean I'm not fine with his giving more and more to the Arts and ballet and me in particular. I know people who hate him who've worked for him, that's just the way it is--this one girl said 'but his money sure is green'. Another knew them socially and said, 'oh god--the Kochs, yes, real Nazis' (that's just a quote, but delete it if politically incorrect.) Now, I have way more experience with bedbugs than I wish, but when I had them, you maintained with sprays both for bugs and eggs--and this is never sufficient by itself: You have to have professionals come (with sniffing dogs specially trained, and this is expensive) and buy and use special bedbug mattress and pillow covers. This would apply to residential and commercial, and a multi-dwelling apt. house like mine would never have conquered the problem without a cooperative landlord--so it should never be attempted alone. You have to get the right outfit to do it too, some of them are just in it for the money and huge preparations are always necessary before treatment; and some of these are good, some are just stupid (the first people made me wrap every one of my books in plastic, even that's not where bedbugs go, except on the rarest occasion.) NOW--in theaters, the reason they're there is just because they really are everywhere now that DDT is illegal, and this is one of the casualties of 'greening of America'. They were gone for decades. BUT--they are carried from hotels very frequently. So is really just that you can hope they've controlled the beasts locally in specific places (and they can do this if they then do followup maintenance), until it's declared a public health emergency which then has programs carried out city-wide, there's going to be no real 'cure', I can guarantee you that. You can spray your luggage, and in most cases you're okay, but look on the internet before staying at ANY hotel anywhere, and see if there are reviews that mention bedbugs (and I know some do.) The intensity of travel from all countries is part of it, as well as the forbidden insecticides. If one does contract these horrors, it does tend to induce panic, but they can be gotten rid of, except in the cases where landlords won't treat in poorer neighborhoods--this has sometimes resulted in whole blocks being razed in Brooklyn, for example. I recommend Action Pest Control as a good company, they have the sniffing dogs, and that's what's necessary. (Sorry this is so off-topic, but people need to know, as this is so horrible an experience that it is almost nervous-breakdown-inducing. The only thing good about it is that I lost 20 lbs., because I couldn't eat nor sleep the entire 8 months of suffering. But that we'd hear of them at the Met and Koch backstage is proof (and they've been reporting this all along) that bedbugs are in all 'income-level places', the only difference being that the higher-income can get them eradicated. And some of these bedbug treatment outfits are really in it for the money, so you have to be firm, and use your head on some of it (it's not easy, because you've usually lost your head by this time.)

sidwich, I'd agree that 'Double Indemnity' is more 'holy writ' that 'Postman Only Rings Twice' by a long shot. Quiggin thought Corinne Luchaire reminded him of Stanwyck in 'Double Indemnity', but Stanwyck is so much grittier and tougher, to my mind. And, to me, that's Stanwyck's best picture and performance; I recall moments of it very frequently. I like Garnett's film quite a lot because the atmosphere is very singular, it's not quite a real place, and not supposed to be, the characters aren't supposed to be realistic in noir anyway, at least in the sense that it's always meant to be 'romantic-sinister', with criminality involved. I suppose the most 'holy writ' of noirs is 'Chinatown', Robert Towne's legendary script, even though it's referred to as a 'neo-noir'. I think its reputation is deserved, and that it's one of the greatest films ever made; and 'Double Indemnity' and 'Chinatown' are always in my Top 10 Favourite Films.

Wow. And here i thought it was the most embarassment of riches I ever even heard of a ballet company announcing. And I haven't even looked at what Hallberg and Stearns and Gomes are going to be up to. Gimme a break--'stuck with Osipova?'. And maybe we'll even be 'stuck with Vishneva' too. Quel horreur! When I read this schedule, I wanted to see nearly everything in it, especially Vishneva in Giselle if I had the money to go to that too. I'm not satisfied with what I saw Part do in that Ashton program--the Awakening pdd with Hallberg. I don't feel as though I've yet seen her (Hallberg either, for that matter, even though they were very elegant.) otoh, even that 'Thais' thing was really seeing Vishneva, even in a short piece, reminded me of the Bayadere clip canbelto put up. Yes, I do want to see a lot more of Miss Vishneva too. I'd like to see Hallberg in a big part too, though.

Sold! As might have been predicted, but these were all very tantalizing characterizations. Thanks so much. Edited to add: Oh dear, it looks like I probably just want to see Osipova--she's not scheduled for 'Giselle', I see. So I guess I will see her Aurora. But Coppelia sounds pretty irresistible too...

My immediate choices were Vishneva in 'Giselle' and Osipova in 'Sleeping Beauty'. What is Vishneva's Giselle like? Do people want to see Cojocaru in it more because they haven't, or because they already like her in it? I know about Cojocaru's Aurora, but I still would rather see Osipova, I think, if I have to choose (I can't remember if Osipova did Aurora here this year, or if anybody has seen her in it, so please inform. Thanks.)

The bedbug plague is absolutely dead-serious. They are everywhere in New York. My building was infested from late 2008 to about August, 2009, my own apt. was treated some 8 times. But the problem wasn't solved till the whole building was treated. Yesterday, at the Richard Rodgers Theater, a lady I was talking to enjoying the show, dropped her playbill on the floor, and went to get another one, because she was afraid it would have bedbugs on it! I think that's a bit absurd, because if they were on the floor, they would easily be infesting our upholstered seats, but your information actually proves that the problem is even more serious than the NYTimes has been telling us, and I can tell you, that there is nothing worse than going through this ordeal. If the bugs are in the backstage area, they are potentially in the entire theater, but I'm sure they're getting the best professionals in to treat for this.

Good clips, Quiggin, thanks. Ms. Luchaire more like Madeleine Ozeray as Julie in 'Liliom', not at all alluring in this kind of clandestine sense. Garvey very good though. I hadn't known about this. Agree about the opening of 'L'ossessione' with the truck and the music (but even after he gets out of the truck, the 4 men together, that's all great), made me wonder if Hitchcock/Hermann liked those opening credits to pull the Janet Leigh windshield wipers in the storm in 'Psycho', do you think so? Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti are both good, but the 'meeting scene' is a much more long-drawn-out affair, and improves as the movie progresses. It's not the instantaneous understanding that Garfield and Turner have. I'd still say Lana's sultriness with Garfield wins out in spades, this is, after all, an American genre primarily, even though I've seen festivals at Film Forum of 'london noir', and such things. I know there must be some successful French and Italian noirs (and 'Ossessione' is if you forget that it's from an American original), but the only one that always stands up the way the American ones do is 'Rififi', and the 'Mado' character (Marie Sabouret) is more like what I see the Cora part (or the 'giovanna' part) than either of these European actresses. Ms. Calamai is good, but it seems a different story somehow. Mr. Girotti is excellent.

I think so, cubanmiamiboy, but it's been a really long time. Visconti did his own version, Ossessione, but I've never seen it. l'Ossessione is worth seeing, but I think the Lange/Nicholson is good too, just not mysterious the way the old one is. Noir is always better when it seems to come straight out of the 40s or 50s, and I think all the versions of 'Farewell My Lovely' are good too. I think I like Lange better in things like 'Country' and 'Crimes of the Heart', she was excellent in those, and maybe 'Frances', even though the facts were ignored. I don't like the clips of her as Blanche Dubois at all, that is the kind of thing I don't think she's good at, and I just saw she had done a 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof' too, I've never seen that, though.