papeetepatrick

You hit the nail on the head with that, because it's sharper than what I said along the same lines. That programming just doesn't seem smart. I just looked at the Playbill again, you would have seen Benjamin Griffiths in 'Mopey', and James Moore is also appearing in the role. What that piece is good for is seeing what the boy can do, and you could see what Puerretta is capable of even with this rather silly piece. I am glad to hear from Helene that he is getting some better material, because I even noticed him a bit more than the others in the Tharp. What the program needed was something that would allow them to be much more expansive, to luxuriate more, than these rather tight pieces.

That's very interesting, never would have thought of it, because it was this one in particular I couldn't quite figure out why it didn't move me. If there really is all that much 'more space', it could be that even their fine dancing could not fill it with enough emotion--and that was the impression I got, that they were trying to, but not quite managing. Yes, and I did see it from a distance in a quite ideal seat. This one I would probably really like if I saw it a few times, and their technique is impossible to fault. I didn't see anything sloppy even in what I didn't care for as choreography. Also, thanks for pointing out about the 'debt to Tharp' of the other pieces. I wouldn't have known that either, and could explain some of my surprise at seeing wonderful dancers in works I just couldn't enter into very much.

Very fine company, but I'm afraid I was never excited much nor moved either. I thought the company looked best in 3 Movements, which seems to be where you can see more of what their specific style is. Maybe Jonathan Pueretta is a star, his movements are marvelous, although I didn't care for that piece either, 'Mopey'. Frankly, to me the company looked good in everything, but never quite came to life for me, except for sparks in 3 Movements, which I thought a good, though not great piece. Most disappointing was the Tharp piece, which I thought undistinguished and academic. A good way of showing off superbly-trained dancers, as these were, but it made me think of Graham's 'Adorations', which is far more imaginative; I was surprised at how boring I found this piece. And for the first time ever I noticed over-smiling, which I'd never thought about before. I think I've only seen one other Tharp piece, the one she did for Baryshnikov, I think it was called 'Push Comes to Shove', and if these two are at all representative of her work, I really just don't get it, period, it just seems pedestrian and derivative. I once saw her dance herself in a film, and always remember what a phenomenal dancer she was, she could do amazing things with her body--yes, it surely happens sometimes that a choreographer is actually a better dancer than creator. The company has a glassy bright sheen, and I'd much rather have seen them do Balanchine. They are not ever messy, and they must do Concerto Barocco especially well (do they do it?) and quite a number of others, as well as much Robbins. I guess these works were chosen partially with the limitations of the Joyce in mind, I believe some of you mentioned that. There were a number of Seattle people in the audience who had come for the run.

Yes, thanks sidwich, and thanks all for responding. I decided not to go, as might be expected. A lot of money for very little? Who needs it. I'll stick to PNB for my 'high art' this week.

Thanks for the info, Helene. I was going to ask you Seattle people for something about these pieces if I went, and I will be going. Just bought ticket a half hour ago.

'Irreplacesable' is so true. This is the first I read of it, jsmu, I remember you're a huge fan too. She is hard to let go of, even for those of us who never got to see her in person it was lovely to think of her. Of course, it will still be, but indeed sad news.

Thanks, Bingham, I may look into it, but I rather doubt I will get to it myself.

Has anybody seen this? I didn't even know it was on, and somehow the songs were often on my mind, esp. 'The Telephone Hour'. From what I can tell, it was at the Roundabout and has moved to Henry Miller's Theater. Official website tickets thru Telecharge doesn't work tonight, thus far, and other ticket prices I find ridiculous, even though I thought I might like to see this (all beginning above $100, and most much more). Would still like to know what those who saw it thought, and was also interested that the title song, written for the movie, was included at the end. That should have made it even richer in some ways, as I think the Strouse/Adams score is unique and first-rate. Try and think of another one like it. It's got all kinds of moods in it, and even though a period piece, it weirdly never seems 'dated'. The movie is good 3/4 of the way through, even though leaving out some good songs, but ruined by stupid stuff with 'reverse television scene' and Janet Leigh's unfortunately poor dancing (she was otherwise good, as usual. I'm sure anybody that saw Chita Rivera do it cannot even watch it.)

No, I never think such things. I can do plenty of things they can't , and some they wish they could too, I bet.

It doesn't matter in your case, you're just very fond of each other for far more important reasons (even if they coincide, I'd subsume the astrological considerations to the others.). I have, though, thought of Suzanne's astrological sign fairly often, because despite various other aspects of her persona, she has a natural glamour, and that is always associated with Leo--there's a natural gloss. It's something I've seemed to think they have even when they try to cover it up. You can see it even in the childhood picture, I forget where to find it. It's not something I usually think about much, except I sometimes think certain signs have specific 'styles' to them--as I imagine Virgos are also often elegant in a more conservative way, but I don't go very far with this, and don't tend to mention my own sign, as people do 'go to town' with these things.

Thank you, Cristian, and to you to, dear fellow! But I NEED it, because I just got back from my Los Angeles annual trip last night, and had finally crossed the Rubicon I didn't really know was there: I infinitely prefer Los Angeles to New York, and want to move out there. I never thought this would happen, and I am so unhappy to be back I cannot even believe it. In any case, I'll be off to have Xmas dinner in a few minutes with some friends here, that ought to help. For me, New York is just not the creative artistic center for what I'm looking for, even thought the most powerful institutions are still here, and there's great work. It's not enough, seems petrified and stodgy by now.

Yes, I agree. She is very extroverted, but then I have in the last few years begun to think that that play is nearly impossible to keep doing. Not that it's not a great play, but how many times can you believe the essential components of it, how many times can you believe it won't fall apart for Blanche? Lots of people thought Ann-Margret either bad or 'too healthy' for Blanche, but I liked her in a a great deal. But I don't want to see the play ever again. The best I saw was Rosemary Harris onstage, she really could do that line 'they-'as AHT...and MU-sic...SOME progress HAS been made....' but what you say about 'the great Lady Star' is the problem or the asset: What else is there in this play. It's not like 'Hamlet', which can be done forever. I think Streetcat is a eeculiar kind of play that plays itself out, and even other T. Williams plays work better. Not that they are intrinsically better, but that I have begun to wonder about 'shelf lives' of plays. I can't get into the Blanche's near-success followed by the remembered failure any more.

Charlus's sexuality is a preposterous subject for a ballet. What does one look for, another Nureyev as in the old film of the Corsaire to get an aestheticized version of his 'body type', which is very much specified in the 'cross-pollination' keyhole episode with Jupien--'what a big bum'. 'Charlus in love' is pretty much an oxymoron anyway; at least 'Swann in Love' is marvelous, because all of his suspicions about Odette are indeed true. But Charlus's 'being in love' is not even one of the most important parts of his character--just this alone from silvermash 'Also, Charlus, unable to get Morel having rough sex with four guys is, up to me choreographed with tact.' So maybe Charlus wants to 'explore Eros with Morel', but that's not the usual meaning of 'being in love'. The scene with Jupien is more important, to my mind, as well as his descent into being a full-fledged and pathetic masochist in the final volume. So it was Petit we saw in that clip a few weeks ago, that Ray and I had such a field day on. Morel in particular is not even one of the complex characters. He's purely an opportunist and I don't think he reflected on a single one of his romantic liaisons. He was a kind of hustler, just beautiful and talented, so able to sell to the upper classes. That's cool, it happens, but this kind of chippie sees only the $ signs. But I totally agree with bart and quiggin that you can't do this, and this: This to me has that whiff of 'the well-rotted archaic' (not your quote, silvermash, I mean the use of Proust in this way), insofar as 'the idea of love only' is not all that easy to execute with profundity, but that this kind of 'grand old master' like Petit using Proust as a kind of 'label' when that Saint-Loup/Morel pas de deux alone proves to me that I wouldn't watch another piece of this work, would have been at least some better, even if a failure, without this 'old Establishment', French version of 'Old Boy Artist Network', and having to look for posterity, almost as if to present some sort of club, 'Roland Petit Does Proust', 'Marguerite Duras and Alain Robbe-Grillet Sit Around Talkin', 'Catherine DeNeuve as Odette in a Highly Acclaimed Proust Film Adaptation'. And that was highly touted, and to mind, did not work any better than 'Swann in Love' with Jeremy Irons and Ornella Muti. In fact, I thought it considerably worse. At least in 'Swann in Love', you got some sense of Swann's despair, in 'Le Temps Retrouve', you see a director using little stick people versions of the characters, and they're all absurd, how wizened they are from the real characters of the novel. Only amusing addition was an American social climber saying she preferred Oriane to Odette, that was a nice touch. I don't know, though, I really didn't think 'Swann in Love' was a terrible film, and that one 'story within the novel' does somehow seem possible to do in other forms. I can see it as a ballet. But, of course, there's nothing in 'The Guermantes Way' that could be done justice unless you did the whole 100-page dinner party at the Guermantes as a play with all of Proust's dialogue intact. Also, maybe there really could be a ballet about Albertine and Marcel, but those sections never interested me personally as much.

Thanks, Perky. It's Helen Wagner, and you can look at her resume here. STILL doing it, according to this. I was interested that she had done some very early TV as well: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0905924/

I see Eileen Fulton (Lisa Hughes) is, acc. to IMDb still in the show--since 1960. I always thought she was beautiful and easily the best of all the soap actresses. Anybody seen her in the last 20 years? because I haven't watched soaps for maybe 40. Did the once-wicked Lisa turn into this nice, sweet grandma? I used to like 'Ellen' too, but don't remember who played her. Also Nancy Hughes, the matriarch, was perfect casting.

Wonderful company, with excellent and beautiful dancers. Surprised I've never heard anybody say anything about them, I've noticed they always have a season at the Joyce, and are New York-based. 4 dances, including 2 entertainment-type ones, i.e., those with couples doing more difficult versions of a very accessible popular kind of dance--these were both very good, and reminded me of smilar sorts I saw at Alvin Ailey last January, but I liked this a lot better. Will try to report in more detail tomorrow if I have time. Do recommend them, though. I saw Program B, which includes 'Club Havana', a very sexy and enjoyable, if predictable piece.

Maybe so, and yet that is definitely a legitimate artistic purpose, to make anti-bourgeois, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-Protestant statements, anti-Buddhist too, which I add because a lot of libertarians won't think that one applies quite so easily, but it does. But, just sticking to 'epater la bourgeoisie', that's even a staple, and 'la bourgeoisie' is not sacred, even if you are one (I am). Frankly, I don't think there's much bourgeoisie in the developed nations that is all that easily offended. This kind of artistic political protest (and if it's religious, it's political) has been going on throughout the 20th century and before, the list of artists in this realm is endless. You can say that the Catholic Church is sacred (as any religious person can say about his religion), but not 'the bourgeoisie'. And maybe you weren't saying that, but it certainly isn't. And since most high art, since the decline of noble and aristocratic power, is meant to soothe the bourgeoisie, it should hardly come as any surprise that non-bourgeois will do it--whether out of legitimate protest at injustice, our ot self-righteousness, or envy. Though bourgeois myself, but I'm just fine with letting some angry artist insult me for it, as long as I can remain so. Being bourgeois is its own reward. I mean, unless and until you can get even further up (and bourgeois usually do climb when they can.)

This one point is, I think, still seriously off. Because many of the adults who take their children to Disney World continue to go there afterward BY THEMSELVES, because they LOVE it. Most of the people I know who watch American Idol and the other TV trash are adults, even though I know the teens watch them. But it's a whole culture of people of all ages who are now consuming the same silly stuff. I do not think you have a point that 'they'd rather be watching Hannah Montana & High School Personal', because it's just most people are all doing that. Maybe more young people, it seems to me that everybody is going for these bimbo things, not just the kids. So there are going to be some Enquiring Minds among the kids too. I guess what I am saying is that you just have to be pro-censorship or anti-censorship, but people have usually made up their minds hard on these matters and are not going to change just because one is 'rational' (I mean I think you are being, but so what.) So the fact is that children either have to be at risk for these things or not. One decides which is the greater risk, that children might find their way to the 'naughty things' (I did) and these 'ruined their lives' (some would say mine was, others would say the contribution had been invaluable), or whether censorship is the greater risk. I certainly agree that the latter is far worse, but then I'm talking of my own interests. And they're talking about theirs; so it really becomes more ideological and political than intellectual/rational at a certain point. What I'm saying is it's, ultimately, not a matter of the rational always being the most powerful, although it is, as with everything else, to a certain degree 'the reason of the stronger is always right' (not morally, but just de facto, as long as something prevails, it can be virtuous or wicked). It is like trying to argue rationally for legalization of drugs or differences of opinion on abortion, religion, etc., it's not only not possible to fully succeed in it, it's also true that the more reactionary side does have at least some points. The only one that seems to me to be valid is that, yes, there will be some young people who find their ways to literally anything, including challenging difficult works. So that what seems 'rational' to us (and probably is, at least we are quite convinced it is) doesn't matter to those who oppose it, there are limits on how convincing the rational argument can be. Another point to make from the other side while not supporting them, is that while I think it entirely wrong to censor and block the de Frutos piece because of its lewdness or whatever, I also don't think it's that serious. Naturally, there would be some backlash from the radio personality (Ross?) you told us about; but that is natural given that things are already so unleashed the bared, and this nakedness itself (however much the backlash), already proved that 'anything really does go', not the other way around. And it's the very prevalence of all the filth you've cited that proves that: With all that there, it's not really very likely that serious censorship of old regimes will ever take hold again. As for 'perverts' in Victorian times and 'hypocrisy', oh well, sure, but there are all sorts of periods in which the emphasis goes back and forth. But we're not now in an Age of Censorship in any serious way.

Bravo, Simon! All good stuff, Simon, I agree with all you've said here and elsewhere on the thread, except want to get niggling about your !00% figure. I've often made the mistake of thinking young people were getting moer bubbleheaded and MySpace -obsessed and cellphone-endlessly-diseased, and yes, of course American Idol (I've never seen it, but I know people of ALL ages take it seriously), but not all of them. Maybe 95% is a better sad figure, and you probably didn't mean the 100% all that literally, so I'm just harping a bit on one little detail, since we will definitely still find those exceptional and sensitive youngsters, of course I'm sure you know that.

Thanks, Ray. It's in one of the volumes of Foucault's 'History of Sexuality', I think the last: 'The Care of the Self (Histoire de la sexualité, III: le souci de soi)', when he references Plutarch. Problem is, he seems to believe it himself to some degree (although others will disagree with that assessment). It's been awhile, and I don't have copies myself anymore, but they are all worth reading for things you would never have thought of, and even in translation, he's got a wonderful style.

At least the 'right in the crotch' got me to watch it, like the rare and gifted 8-year-old I am, trying to find something challenging on BBC4, but AWFUL beyond imagining. It's enough to make Plutarch's edict of gracelessness as recalled vividly by Foucault ring almost totally true--at least while your watching such stupid crap. Yes, very pretty, even gorgeous, boys, but the silliness of 'St. Loup and Morel', just because it's prestigious to use Proust even though it ends up more like 'Caravaggio's Boys'. Plus the Faure, doubtless recalling 'Vinteuil's little phrase for Odette/Swann', now for some 'romance' between the aristocrat Saint-Loup and the 'talented but modest-beginnings violinist' Morel, who turns out to be the opportunisitic poulain/putain par excellence--later has as one of his clients the Prince de Guermantes, just using anybody--at least if they'd Morel more of a 'top', so they wouldn't both just come across as a couple of sissies. Not that I was expecting anything all that masculine-Western, etc., but whew! did I ever have to hold my nose on this one. Proust is not about 'romance' in the American sense anyway (nevermind it's french choreographed), Bataille says he sees Eros much more like Sade, and I agree. Sorry to be so Who was the other boy? He was even handsomer, I thought. And wasn't Denys Ganio in something of Petit's Proust piece (or is this part of the same thing) that I think I saw, but I may be confusing. I thought Denys, Mathieu's father, was the handsomer, though.

Hi Patrick, One thing I really want people to understand is that the piece was intended for BBC4. BBC4 is not a mainstream BBC channel - it's a specialist pay to view/cable channel that specifically shows high art and niche arts subjects. It is an alternative space for broadcast performance. It's the equivalent of an art gallery, niche arts performance space, the content shown is more specialised than other cable channels such as the Performance Channel. There was never any intention of showing the De Frutos sandwiched between Blue Peter and Eastenders and never any real potential for a five year old to switch on the television and be confronted with images of a Pope punching a pregnant nun. To get BBC4 you actually have to have the cable technology and actively want to scroll through the menu to find it and select it. BBC4 is as off-the-beaten-track, non mass audience, niche market as it's possible to get. Thanks for clarifying, Simon. I thought it might be possible that there was something I was missing about British TV (may not have read your posts closely enough sorry). And I have to say, now that you've explained it, I can't disagree with anything you're saying. As far as I'm concerned, an 'off-the-beaten-track', 'non-mass-audience' use of De Frutos's piece is fine, even on Christmas Eve or Day.

Thanks for echoing my point about this, kfw. While I agree with Simon and Mashinka about the rest of it (literally all of it), I think it was perfectly ridiculous to choose Christmastime to air it, and I actually thought innopac was joking at first. Christmas is still a religious holiday to many people, and I think airing this at Christmas, even though I'm not religious myself, was an idiotic and even loathsomely uncouth idea. Note that this is coming from someone who wouldn't be the least bothered by any of it himself. As I originally wrote, I wouldn't mind seeing it either, although I don't think it sounds worth the money. If one wants to do a 'subversive anti-papacy show at Christmas to really *mike a stite-ment* ', it's not the BBC that's the right venue, it's at an alternative space in live performance, or on special exotic cable channels.

I like this idea, because interesting to think about ballerinas who think their Odile is more important than their Odette. While this doesn't sound like the 'right artistic attitude' or have the requisite integrity, then neither really does 'when I'm bad I'm better' (which may mean Makarova's Odile was even better than her Odette), but it might mean that the devil was gotten all the way into the Odile in certain cases. And there are enough Swan Lakes to satisfy those who prefer Odette (as is generally recommended), so that I'd like to hear, as an accompaniment to this (if that's all right), about ballerinas whose Odile is so fully realized in her evil that it is surely better than their Odette. I know I always prefer Odile, if I must confess, if she's danced superbly. Interesting, though--it's Makarova's Odette I remember. On video, I like Mezentseva, who is able to be very creepy with her extreme mannerism. This elongated look is very good for suggesting superficiality and the vacuous posturings that are always a part of 'evil types', from all the Lucifers and 'Beautiful Satans' to Hannah Arendt's 'banality of evil', which can surely be fanciful while banal.

Agree with everything you say, Mashinka, but I have to say it's somewhat comical that they ever put this piece on a Christmas program. Why not just go ahead and perform it at St. Peters? Then we could debate on whether previous popes would be more tolerant of 'artistic merit' (or the lack of) than this pope, etc., I don't know what they had planned to contrast it with, maybe 'Away in a Manger'.