papeetepatrick

I wouldn't go that far, but Sharpton is far from the only public figure who has been comparing Jackson to figures as Jackie Robinson. If you think back, prior to "Thriller," entertainment was still highly segregated, and Jackson broke that color barrier by being the first African-American performer to be featured on MTV. He opened a major door for African-American entertainers to walk through, and I think he does deserve credit for that. Oh no, sidiwich, I agree with you (on some of that, I'll get to the other below) and surely didn't edit and readjust the order of sentences quite perfectly. I wasn't trying to denigrate Michael Jackson, even though I just consider him 'an important entertainment figure', his own tortured existence is just as much of what difficulties can present themselves for a black person in a white-dominated culture, viz., the attempts to look white as well as then claiming to go back to solidarity with blacks. If he broke barriers for African-Americans, and I have no doubt that he did although I think in some much more modest way, it wasn't because that was his main goal, as it was with activists. I was myself just talking about Sharpton and how he uses any African-American for his infernal The Sharpton Show, and indiscriminately, which nauseates me. But you can talk about other entertainers who did the same thing, even if they started in Paris, like Josephine Baker (although with a brief period in Harlem herself) No, I don't agree with that, entertainment by the 60s and 70s was not 'highly segregated', and if Jackson was the first to be featured on MTV, that's not because MTV was highly segregated either, but because they just coincided at the same time. MTV and 'Thriller' are about of the same vintage. I mean, even the old 'Solid Gold' was hardly segregated. And what about Burt Bacharach and Dionne Warwick? That was definitely mainstream entertainment back in the 60s just to give one example, not to mention even before that Nat King Cole. I guess I don't see what you're getting at.. Because MTV would never have had a 'whites preferred' policy; that is a commercial entity and I'm not convinced they could ever be thought of as presenting a 'color barrier.' Not surprising to find a lot of hype around Jackson at his death, although neither his nor Farrah's death came to me as any surprise. It was bound to be an after-death fame syndrome just begun, much like Marilyn's and Elvis's. Not having been a fan of his, I was nevertheless always aware of his talent and that he had a huge following, but if he broke any barriers, I can't see that they are much different from those that Madonna broke. Now, what I'd want to see is something like what Barbra Streisand did by her power very early in her career, which is not to have to hide your Jewishness at all anymore. There's a bio of Judy Holliday (may get a chance to look up the author later) that pointed this out, and all the long history of Hollywood Jewish actors (with some exceptions like Paul Newman), but Holliday herself was Judith Tuvim, and that at the time was not going to work as a big star name. The Jewish names kept were by the moguls and the directors. You didn't see any big stars with names like Goldstein, Rosenbaum, Schwartz, etc. Sure, things like 'Segal', which can go either way. But stars basking in their Jewishness (of course, not nearly only that) didn't exist until Streisand was so powerful that she could get anything she wanted in that period. Did Jackson do anything like this for blacks? I can't see what he did that was so special in that area. It seems to me he was just a great entertainer, and by virtue of being black expanded black entertainement, but there were already so many hugely popular black entertainers, and had been for decades. And his own investment in 'blackness' is pretty dubious, it seems to me. For the record, I just looked up the dates: MTV was launched in August, 1981, and Thriller released in November, 1982.

Sharpton is never interested in anything but the gratification of the moment, and bart's mention of the matter of the 'accuracy of these statements' is an important part of it--it it happens to be accurate, then it's purely coincidental, as it's clear from one event to the next there is not the slightest interest in any kind of verisimilitude, any kind of logic, or anything but rabble-rousing at its cheapest. He even used Paris Hilton's day-long early release from her jail sentence in 2007 as reason to make a trip to Los Angeles and preach about 'racial unfairness', nevermind she went back to jail and finished her sentence, and Nicole Richie, partly black, served only 82 minutes for hers. I don't believe a word he says, and familiarity with the Armstrong and Ellington careers would have served no purpose in what is always the same Sharpton Show, which is to say, purely racist. The Tawana Brawley case says it all. 'Before Michael we were limited and ghettoized'. One of the most repulsive and blatantly false statements I've ever heard. You'd think Michael was the same kind of civil rights leader as Martin Luther King, Jr.or Malcolm X. Sharpton is simply unspeakable.

Not any response at all, unless 'just ignoring it' is the same thing as 'no response'. It wasn't directed at ballet lovers or ballet dancers, so it has no effect on them. That's normal macho talk in pro sports, I don't even object to it, why would I? Just because it's stupid and redneck doesn't quite make it 'hate speech'? It doesn't even exist!

Oh, no contest at all. FARRAH. Because for some reason or other, she really was a STAR. The tragedy all the more upsetting when you remember old Barbara Walters interviews when Barbara would say that her magnificent Los Angeles digs 'befit her stardom', having segued from interviewin another big name. I can't remember who it was tho', but she preferred a more modest lifestyle, that was sort ot the theme on that show. And then read that she was on 20/20 last month, and there was talk of Ryan O'Neal 'proposing to her'. This is just heartbreaking, and would be better on the other thread were it not to prove my point that she was the ONLY bona fide star among those 'Angels.' This stardom was not really deep, but it was a true 'American Exotic'. She was a beautiful young woman, and looks like a beautiful Texas girl, which she was. And I think it's this 'American Exotic' that explains that poster, which did seem to be a very strange phenomenon even at the time. But that poster proves something. As far as I'm concerned, 'Charlie's Angels' is of no importance except for the glamour and relative charm and beauty of the girls. And in this, the rest don't even approach Farrah. They'd even write lines in with guys saying 'you are just so beautiful'. Now THAT I've not heard happen regularly, and they are the only lines I remember from that show, which bored me no end. I don't see any of the others as distinguished in any way., although I'm not familiar with Julie Rogers, so will reserve judgment. Although I do find Cheryl Ladd and Jaclyn Smith impressive as extreme B-list types and 'part go-getters' (lol). I think Ladd even managed to get in a production on B'way, can't have been 'Annie Get Your Gun', can it? Sure glad I didn't see that. Otherwise, TV movie material, no more, no less. Farrah had a presence, and I will add that some of her serious performances WERE extremely good, especially 'The Apostle'. The others interchangeable with Victoria Principal, etc.

Oh, now Miss Turner suddenly looks even more interesting on my eyes... ...still She IS one of the most interesting Hollywood characters, Cristian--it's just that most of it's offscreen. The book by her last secretary-hairdresser, Eric Root (forget the title, but it came out about 1996, just after her death), has one of the confessions in it. She had just met Laurence Olivier for the first time, but I don't know whether that caused her to lose it that time...the outburst occurred in a hotel near Lincoln Center...

Agreed, that's what I'm trying to do also. He must have had a lot of demons and did a lot that was questionable and certainly bizarre. But I really think he was a thrilling performer with tons of charisma and hope that the memory of his career peak dominates the way he is remembered rather than his troubled final years. May he RIP and I also wish the best to his children. Well, yes, but he will be remembered for both--and should be, because it's just a matter of historical accuracy, And his notoriety was a big deal. There's no such thing as remembering Lana without Stompanato (whom she sometimes confessed to having killed herself, and probably did), or Sinatra without his Mob connections, even if you don't emphasize them. Michael's extreme childishness (pretending all the cosmetic suregery was 'naturel', i.e., that he hadn't had any, which is disingenuous in the extreme) is probably what endears him to some--and with some good reason. But his notoriety is of the extreme sort, and there was a great deal of undisclosed material around the various paedophile cases. There is still a lot around the Marilyn Monroe death, for another kind of example of non-disclosure of the material evidence, that is still not known, or is kept under lock and key and not known to the public.

There was something back in the late 70s or early 80s, a kind of ad for some kind of heath organization, or just some kind of health public service kind of thing that she did. I believe Barbra Streisand did something a bit like this, but it wasn't so memorable. She was still very beautiful and statuesque, and her little monologue ends 'Because when you have your heath, you have it all.' She really made this sound profound, and another friend was equally impressed at the uncanniness (most surprising) of this little TV piece. There was another disastrous Letterman appearance right after 9/11, I was in disbelief. I hadn't known till the obit that there had been one in 1997 as well in which she was 'incomprehensible'. But I always thought of that old TV spot, and what had happened to her. A lot in the Ryan O'Neal family has malfunctioned, Tatum O'Neal said so a couple of years ago. In any case, something happened in which she stopped being 'healthy' long before she had cancer. That Letterman thing was truly one of the saddest things I've ever seen, even Courtney Love's gross appearances were vaguely intelligible.

Aha! but you've given us her other great show-stopper, 'Losing My Mind', with other lyrics like 'The sun comes up...I think about you...the coffee cup...I think about you...' Here is the first part of 'Too Many Mornings', which is especially gorgeous toward the climax when they sing together. And also worth your time to listen to the original album, Collins's voice was a revelation to me after seeing her in corny things on 'Hit Parade' as a baby. It's very pure and silvery, really a kind of nightingale voice. Too many mornings Waking and pretending I reach for you, Thousands of mornings Dreaming of my girl. All that time wasted, Merely passing through, Time I could have spent So content Wasting time with you. Too many mornings Wishing that the room might be filled with you. Morning to morning, Turning into days. All the days that I thought would never end, All the nights with another day to spend. All those times I'd look up to see Sally standing at the door Sally moving to the bed, Sally resting in my arms With her head against my head.

Thanks, bart, I too saw 'Follies', and some of the things being called 'innovative' were indeed 'overpadded' and ust pretentious. But there was the thrill of old stars like Alexis Smith (nevermind I didn't know who she was at the time), Yvonne deCarlo, the very old Ethel Shutta singing 'Broadway Baby', but especially for me, Dorothy Collins simply glorious in the one really great role--this was totally unexpected from the 'Hit Parade' girl, and she was superb with John McMartin in 'Too Many Mornings', one of Sondheim's most ravishing songs. I also saw the original 'Company', but that had such electricity in it, I thought the book was fine. It was just about marriage and 'not being married', so the collection of characters was more interesting than the individual characters--a bit more abstract than musical comedy usually is. I am very ignorant about 'A Chorus Line' and never saw a stage production of it. I can't say I'm crazy about the Hamlisch music, although it's fine. Did see the movie, which is supposed to be terrible, and I tended to think little of it myself as well. 'Candide' is, I think, an okay, if not great, book as well. Most of them really aren't masterpieces in the playwriting department. Few 'My Fair Lady's and 'South Pacific's, when you think about it, really, and of course, 'Gypsy'. I was very surprised, btw, that Patti Lupone finally triumphed as Mama Rose, and the production didn't last a full year. Recession, yes, but lots of real crap kept running. That was an important production, and I thought it very impressive, glad she won the Tony for it.

Exactly, in fact one of the strange things about the 'Funny Girl' score is that, even though they're good 'stand alone' songs, they rarely are sung alone, because not one of them not owned by Streisand. Excellent remarks on the vibrato through the consonant--I mean first-rate! I wouldn't have known to think of it that way, but i was recently noticing how her vibrato in the more obvious definition is one of the most beautiful of which I'm aware, and part of the beauy ot her singing of ballads, etc., so this enhances that even more, i.e., her vibrato is one of the things that marks her uniqueness. But--vibrato through consonants, oh yes, that is very cool, and you can believe I'm going to listen to the 'mule' again soon. BTW, saw now 'Funny Girl' again for first time since the 60s. The cast album doesn't prepare you for what a boring book it can be, although nothing IMO compared to 'On a Clear Day'. But I remember objecting to 'My Man', not because it was bad, but because I had so loved 'The Music the Makes me Dance', and it is a more lyrical song. However, since the movie is so glitzed up for Streisand's big movie debut, singing a real Fanny Brice torch song, not just 'Second Hand Rose', makes it finally somewhat redeemed as at least somewhat still about Fanny Brice, not just Barbra. And since nothing at all comes after 'My Man' has concluded, this is a very dramatic effect, and for me, renders all the preceding, even though often pretty pedestrian, so that the movie is a big mess, but still you finish it with a sense of satisfaction, and can even recognize it as a perfectly good movie. Also, 'Hie Love Makes Me Beautiful' is very nicely done in the film, and I hadn't remembered it so favorably.

Marvelous thread, one can almost feel a revolution or tidal wave now that Macaulay has got this started. It excited everybody, and all the posts are a bit electric. I now look back and think I've seen all of about 2 Ashton pieces live in my years of balletgoing; of course, I don't go nearly as frequently as some, but I've seen more of almost everybody else anyway. Otherwise, I've just seen videos of Ashton works, and that's really the only way I know any of them well at all.

Here's another aspect of musicality that I think i figured out when discussing Graham with someone last night. You can see it very easily in both of her big filmed dances, 'Night Journey' and 'Appalachian Spring'. It has to do with the compositional process primarily, in that it's extremely fugal, contrapuntal, with movements in 'several voices' like a Bach fugue--you have in several scenes, independent dance-actions going on in 'Appalachian Spring', except in the solos, when the other dancers are frozen and remain motionless. Right before the Bride and Husbandmen kneel at the altar for the brief blessing by the evangelist, there had been a whole quick series of interactions, between the husbandman and the preacher, the Bride and the Pioneer Woman, and as they walk to the altar, the 4 followers all whisk through as a final breezy punctuation with their adorable petticoats and tilted heads to be still and respect the little ceremony. Likewise, in 'Night Journey', you have all sorts of simultaneous movements in the Chorus, with Oedipus and Jocasta twisting and writhing, doing grotesque movements here then there, getting the images in sometimes 3 discrete locations on the stage, complicating it still further when they're tying themselves up in the rope and forming yet more geometric shapes, while the Chorus marches in royal fashion, not one detail of which, no matter how small, has not been carefully thought out. INteresting Simon G pointed out the actual viola in Concerto Barocco, I hadn't even been thinking of that. At the moment of dashing off that about Balanchine/Farrell, i was thinking about a viole (or it could have been a violin or viola, or maybe even sometimes a 'built instrument' like Harry Partch made; was thinking more of certain kinds of vibrato-like movement I saw in performances of 'Mozartiana' live, and which you can still see even on the DVD of 'Tzigane', where Farrell's body seems to extend beyond its already lengthy frame--this gives a quality of continued vibrato that you can see in her body in that piece (and surely elsewhere, I just remember that image in particular a few times on viewing that video) seem to vibrate, because of course it does not materially extend to 10 feet, etc., it's a matter of a sense of movement even when the body is still, that would be like the vibrato I was thinking of (but interested to hear about the 'real viola passage', need to see CB again.) Anyway, two very different kinds of 'musicality choreographing'. and primarily writing now because once I hit upon the word 'fugal', i could understand that that was a Bach-like way of musical thinking that Graham was fully capable of in seeing her many different kinds of movement all saying different things simultaneiously. It's not an exact paraller to a Bach Fugue, because each voice has to be more closely allied in terms of material character to not be discordant, whereas discord is not a jarring thing when several non-harmonious kinds of dance action are taking place in 'Night Journey'. Also, Graham had so many scores written for her by important young composers of her modernist day, that you have a built=in collaboration with her choreography and the music of Dello Joio, Menotti, Barber, Copland, etc., and it often works beautifully. I would be interested to know how Diversion of Angels was put together. The Woman in Red can dance against the music a lot, and yet you see the Apollonian Woman in White dancing in an almost ballet feeling to more lyrical and flowing music early on in the piece.

And I am seeing for the last time some 35 years ago! so not the most precise words will come from me, I hope someone else will chime in on this one. I did see it a few times in the mid-70s at NYCB, and thought it very charming, and yes, surely musical, but too long ago and I knew much less then; so I have to leave it at that general level of 'yes, musical' and thought it was thoroughly charming in many, if not all, its pieces of Chopin/Robbins. Oh yes, Simon G, I love the way the Balanchine works with the music in 'Apollo'. Interesting what you've said about Stravinsky and 'Agon', I really think I saw it only once, and that was long ago. Yes, in 'Concerto Barocco', you can see both some movements that 'accompany the music', as I recall from 2004, when last I saw it again, and some very 'musical choreography' that reminds one of the music but is choreographic music rather, that resembles in dance form what the style of the music is, but without following it so closely (I have an image in mind on this piece, but it's a little vague, so I may be being imprecise.) But whether or not this image from Concerto barocco is exactly right, there are many examples in Balanchine of movement that 'looks like musical phrase' in form of choreography (will look like counterpoint, for example), but is not in that moment 'imitating the music' or being overly dependent on it. This is a little hasty and rough, but I hope the gist is there.

This is GREAT. I don't see how you said it all in so succinct a way. I like the description of 'leading/chasing the beat', even though I've known what that means for a good while now, I didn't when I first started seeing ballet and dance. It does sound strange, only because people who dislike Balanchine find his musicality too slickly or simplistically mimetic--i.e., "visualizing" the music in obvious or (merely) clever ways ("Mickey Mousing," as per LitLing above). Some say this about Mark Morris too. I find his musicality neither jarring nor slick, however--no accounting for taste, I guess!--but I can understand the criticism. Can you elaborate on your sense of annoyance? Balanchine is extremely musical IMO, no two ways about it. Sometimes there is a strong sense of 'visuaiizing the music', but that's cool, totally legit. You see a lot of it in 'Davidsbundlertanze'. Much rather see it there and in 'Chaconne' than over-visualizing one of the Minkus Magnum Opus Masterpiece-Masterworks And for all I think the Balanchine/Farrell collaboration is sometimes hyped, you can't get around that this is a whole matrix of danced musicality--can even make the vibrato of stringed instruments come to mind, seeing the vibrato of, say, a mellow viola. I think Amy's great synopis also shows how musical choreographers like Graham and Humphreys can be very musical in quite different and previously unexplored ways, though, as well. And there's just no such thing as Petipa being 'unmusical', of course. And Fokine! How can you GET more 'depth of Chopin' than in 'Les Sylphides'. I swear I think 'Les Sylphides' is one of the greatest masterpieces of any kind in all history--pure magic in both music and dance--and did Rudolph Nureyev ever know how to really hear Chopin--an incredibly sensitively musical dancer. (Forgive my Morning of Hyperbole....)

I can't vote on your poll, Cristian, because neither covers my reaction. I think it is satisfying the way figure skating and ice dancing, obvious 'dance-sports', are satisfying, and the music is no worse than the trash I've often heard used in both of those (with hideous and even whorish costumes sometimes even in the Olympics, by the way); not that I don't agree with Helene that the music is terrible, it is. I can see it this way--as more of a sport and with the handicaps out front and part of the whole experience, although I can't say I particularly found it interesting. It seems impossible to appreciate it, though, without the element of the missing limbs--let's face it, that's what it's about, just like handicap races, etc. Which doesn't mean it's impossible to create a dance for these two dancers that might be really good, it might. It probably ought to be more specifically 'about their missing limbs', rather than 'despite their missing limbs'. It does go into the 'inspiring part' of your poll part a bit for me, though. Even if you don't it especially esthetic, you know that it means an enormous amount to them--that they are able to do it is wonderful in itself.

This is very good IMO. I can live with some ambiguity too, and I wouldn't have been specialized myself to think about Nijiinsky's Rite of Spring as being other than a ballet. And although Copland subtitiled his score for 'Appalachian Spring' 'ballet for Martha', it doesn't follow that the piece is a ballet, but I don't care if it was called one. There's also a video collection of 'Five Dances by Martha Graham' made about 1991, with 'Diversion of Angels', 'Heroidiade', 'Il Penitente', etc., and the narrator speaks of the more than -'140 ballets Martha created'. Well, none of them are ballets literally, of course, so I also like to know the refined definitions, but am not bothered if these are not insisted upon by masses of general public viewers.

Glad you mentioned that, I have got to put that down on my list immediately, since I've never given Eliot the time he deserves. This is just as applicable for dirac's 'Reading Out of Duty' thread, and I'm very superstitious of writing what I AM reading so, like you, I prefer 'I just finished , in case I don't...So, I finally read both Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonnus, and may re-read Antigone, the only one I had read. I had not known the order in which they were written, and that Sophocles wrote 'Oedipus at Colonnus' when he was in his 90s (wow! creative senior citizens of Ancient Greece! pretty fantastic, eh?) I owe this to watching the movie of 'Night Journey' over and over, and was fascinated that Graham has Jocasta being directly informed by Tiresius, whereas it is Oedipus who hears it before she does in the original, and when she finds out, tries for awhile to resist the reality, which resistance you do see in the dance. That's why it might not be quite 'reading out of duty', because without the Graham piece, I might never have completed the Theban Trilogy.

Oh, me too, and there are so many good ones, La Separation with Huppert, Un Coeur en Hiver with Emanuelle Beart (to whom he was married), Lucie Aubrac with the stunning Carole Bouquet, Ma Saison Preferee with Deneuve, La Fille Sur le Pont with Vanessa Paradis, and that funny gay thing with him and Depardieu. Le Placard. Lots more than just those--he's stupendous, the son of 2 opera singers, and looks like an opera character with that great nose.

I'm surprised I find myself agreeing with this to a great degree, but not in one important sense. But it leads me to try to make some formulations which may or may not be valid as well. But I'd say as a whole work, 'Hello Dolly' is obviousy the better show, a very good show, in fact, even though I'm never going to love it like 'My Fair Lady' or 'South Pacific'. It's a peculiar kind of musical, in that it's essentially unromantic--Dolly is marrying for money and security, which is all right, but that's not usually the stuff of musical comedy, certainly not Emile de Becque and Nellie Forbush, Lt. Cable and Liat. So your remark leads me to observe also that the songs for Hello Dolly! were not written for Streisand, unlike those for Funny Girl--and they also really cannot be sung a la Streisand, that is to say songs like 'Dancing' or 'Put on Your Sunday Clothes' can't (but there again, she has that rousing 'All aboard! All aboard1!' in the latter.... Having said that, I still think 'Funny Girl' has the much better score. 'Hello, Dolly!' has good songs, and the title song has its own ingenuity, even though we know where the first phrase was lifted from and thence paid for. But good songs like 'Before the Parade Passes By' are not IMO on the same level as 'Don't Rain on My Parade', as good as anything in 'Gypsy'. And 'It ONly Takes a Moment' is pretty pale next to 'The Music that Makes Me Dance' or 'Who Are You Now?' or even 'People' (Streisand does 'own' the Funny Girl songs to such a degree that few have ever sung them. Dionne Warwick managed 'People' quite well, and she's the kind of artist who could do it. I don't know Bobby Darin's version of 'Don't Rain on my Parade'.) I also love all the Ziegfeld Follies numbers that Styne wrote, although I agree that a show that ends up being about some ganblin' man is pretty silly, and the extremes of emotion in those very songs I just mentioned are just that, exaggerations. I actually think the Funny Girl score is as good as that for Gypsy, but the comparison ends there. Was interested in what you wrote about 'Cornet Man' and would like to know more specifically how she 'Streisandized' it (great term, by the way, yes, she is non-stop Streisandizing... ) In all the Streisandizing in Funny Girl, I love it, maybe even especially Cornet Man, which I'm crazy about. Capote said Diahann Carroll sang 'A Sleepin' Bee' better than Streisand, who turned it into a 'three-act opera'--or something like that, it's been awhile since I read that. Well yes, for the show, Carroll sounds wonderful, but on the early record, there's hardly anything more wondrous than Streisand's huge opening up of this song. THAT is Streisandizing at its best. I imagine some of what you are saying about 'Cornet Man' has to do with hamming it up like she does with 'It's Not Cricket to Picket' in 'Pins and Needles', where I also think it is very funny (also find her 'Nobody Makes a Pass at Me' hilarious.) I think there were more shows in the old days with good scores and weak books. Of course, 'On a Clear Day...' is exactly what you both say it is, and is surely beyond repair as a book. But some of the songs are delightful and lovely. 'Funny Girl' even more the case, and 'House of Flowers' perhaps still more, with one Arlen gem after another. I am SO GLAD they have never made a film version of House of Flowers, so that I don't have yet another musical film adaptation to complain about...So that dirac is right that 'they weren't vandalizing a masterpiece', but my major complaint is not even how badly Montand sang Ithat really wouldn't matter that much by itself--oh well, I don't know, Cullum sounds GREAT in all of the songs), but how badly Streisand SANG. I can deal with some of her awful movies, but have a harder time when she sounds bad, because she is such a consummate musician. So the weakness of the book and thence screenplay don't quite account for a horror like her opening rendition of 'Hurry, It's Lovely Up Here'. In the sleeve of the old LP, I believe we see Barbara Harris with a flower pot, and she sings it as this sort of 'immanence', you feel the gentleness and quiet coaxing, something almost like a warm clucking even, you can almost feel the flowers growing. In the movie, you get this ridiculous scene of Streisand romping through a BOTANICAL GARDEN and it looks straight out of 'I'm five, I'm five, I'm a big girl now I'm five....' And that's all about buying some seedlings flats at the Woolworth's and then overwatering them to death! Lord, it's awful. And 'He Wasn't You' has a vague 'massage parlour feel' to it. I agree with dirac that seeing Jack Nicholson pop up is nice, he comes across as such rifraff in it. Thanks for thoughtful and informative remarks, sidwich, I do appreciate it.

Thanks, dirac, that explains some of it. Maybe in that big debut-package of Streisand's first films, which I think also included 'the Owl and the Pussycat', sometimes they let her style the songs in that inappropriate way just because she was so hot at the time--which doesn't explain why she sings the songs from ;Hello Dolly' mostly straight (with a few little flourishes as in that marvelous beginning to 'So Long Dearie') and they sound so good (nothing better than that moment with Louis Armstrong in the title song). Probably has to do with Gene Kelly, whose performing credentials may have been something she didn't feel she could argue with, she may have been in awe of him, whereas I don't know what Minnelli was thinking; anyway, he wasn't a performing star. But somehow or other, Kelly got her to be a part of the goings-on, instead of that always breaking-away, somewhat overly narcissistic thing that happened. Of course, that works very well in 'Funny Girl', because she's really the whole show, and it has never had a life of its own after the early days (as far as I know.) Yeah, true about Lerner's 'tinkering', from the very beginning I remember the tales of composing and writing 'Melinda', and I don't think it's the most inspired song in the show even after all that--the bridge is really pretty banal. I think 'She Wasn't You', as sung on the cast album, is an absolute perfect gem, though.

I don't think I've mentioned the score for 'On a Clear Day You Can See Forever', but sidwich, dirac and I (and perhaps others) did discuss it and briefly the Broadway version and the film version--I think on a Fred Astaire thread, talk about dubbing, etc.. I'm bringing it up again because I watched the film again over the weekend, and was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, especially since I've been resuscitated recently into a HUGE BABS FAN again, due to seeing and hearing some of the concerts on DVD and CD and even just a YouTube of 'Something Wonderful' from one of the concerts; i'm convinced now that her uniqueness as a singer is that she is really an opera singer who sings pop--not that she's greater than a few other singers, but it's bigger the way an opera singer's voice is. I thought maybe I'd just been some know-it-all little student attitude' some 38 years ago when I was startled at how awful I thought the film was. Well, this time I thought it was even worse. I don't think it has a thing going for it, and that the most extraordinary thing about it is that Ms. Streisand sings ALL of her songs dreadfully, with no respect for the material, yes, she sings them like she's in a club, just over-styling all over the place. Montand singing is also worthless here, he has no energy even atop the PanAm Building with 'Come Back to Me' (what a corny montage of Manhattan that is as well), and they didn't even make him pronouce the words properly, so the French accent comes out 'You ah a dweam, Me-winda, just a mi-wage, so they say...' I remember as a high school freshman reading the mostly unfavourable reviews when Barbara Harris and John Cullum opened the Lerner/Lane show about 1965. But then I heard the album, and think it is one of the best scores ever written for a Broadway shoe. Left out of the movie are 'S.S. Bernard Cohn', 'Wait Till We're 65','Don't Tamper with my Sister', 'When I'm Being Born Again' (well, that last was little sacrifice), and 'Tosy and Cosh' is only background music for the beginning of Melinda's overdressed and really rather coarse flirtation with Tentrees (I think it's Moncrief in the original, but that's one difference that really doesn't matter), with this absurd glass of wine on the cleavage, such that you don't think of aristocracy so much as the Eating Scene from 'Tom Jones'. This is accompanied by a new song 'Love With all the Trimmings', which is pretty repellent too, almost like an outgrowth of the new song Jerry Herman wrote for her in 'Hello, Dolly!' while she brushes her hair, 'Love Is Only Love', which is IMO a much better song, although Lane by far the more gifted songwriter (I assume he wrote both this and 'Go To Sleep', which I also can't stand.) Worse than any of this is the way Streisand sings the songs, like the opening 'Hurry, It's Lovely Up Here', sung enchantingly by Barbara Harris--Streisand sings this like some oozing lounge singer. And the fact that she is given TWO of the men's songs that aren't slashed--the title song, although also sung weakly by Montand, she belts out at the end, very reminiscent of the end of 'Sweet Charity', which has a lot of problems, but nowhere near this much of a mess. Most unforgivable is Clifford David's gorgeous rendition of 'She Wasn't You' is now sung by Barbra as 'He Wasn't You' to Montand on the shrink's couch. And she sings it in that pretentious weird sinuous quasi-floating way she was using a good bit at the time, which worked for 'Love Is Only Love', but not in any of these songs. 'Funny Girl' and 'Hello, Dolly!' both were good, if not great, films, and the material is respected even if it's not blue ribbon. I just wonder what happened in this disaster. We have Vincent Minnelli, of incredible film musical credentials ('Gigi', 'The Band Wagon', and others). And even though Streisand was always so potent at the time she was often over-the-top in Funny Girl and Hello, Dolly, she did stay reasonably within the songs of a SHOW, instead of tearing them apart and making them into 'Streisand material'. There seems to be no control over much of anything in this grotesque travesty--and the early scenes in Montand's office are ENDLESS. And 'What Did I have that I Don't Have', which is the only one that would lend itself to Streisand's exaggerations, also has no focus to it, although she does push it even here. Sidwich and dirac, do you have any idea why this happened? Did this crew just let Babs do whatever she wanted to, or did they just decide we'll go the commercial vehicle, never was that great a show anyway? Am I just being beastly, and you think it's a good or decent movie? Because Hello, Dolly did end up as a very good film, and Babs works in it beautifully, even if people wanted something else, not someone so young. Anyway, this post is partially about what I find a terrible movie, maybe Barbra's worst (although I've never gotten more than halfway through 'funny Lady' or 'A Star is Born'), but also about a wholesale trashing of a beautiful Broadway score. All the grandeur of the English part is gone, in favour of this vaguely lewd sort of costumey tableau--and acting-wise, although Barbra does some good comedy work as Daisy Gamble, she is never convincing as Melinda. I just wonder if anyone felt similarly about this, to me it's like 'how did they get away with this?' However much a bomb 'A Little Night Music' is considered to be, it still has a few good moments with Len Cariou, and I don't think comes close to what happened with this product, which is really a bit shocking. The one good thing to come out of it is that she really began to sing the title song well in TV (Barbra Streisand and Other Musical Instruments), and in concerts as recently as the 90s and perhaps beyond.

Miliosr asked the question, but the posts are great, Simon G. I learned a lot that I would never have known how to put together and research elsewhere, even over years. Really informative, thanks. You've given a comprehenvive, but substantial survey, even if brief, of modern dance that is somewhat like cubanmiamiboy's review of ballet in Cuba.

Okay, Mel, but I now just saw it, and will just say that I thought the interview was excellent, agree with DeborahB on this part, and think Ms. Stahl and Martins were both fine, the 'Joan Fontaine' tiny gaffe didn't matter a whit, she even smoothly says 'not the actress'. And talk about TELEGENIC--wow, does she get more gorgeous with the years! and IMO as gracious as possible. (Okay, promise not to say more about the intermission. Thanks.) Anyway, whole productionb has sawed-off look, never feels Italian at all, feels all boxed-in and the male dancers' costumes except for Romeo's make them look squat. Everything looks pretty squat and closed-in. Are there R & J's by RDB? Because sometimes I wonder (since I don't know) if Martins's often 'compact look' in his pieces comes from what is very naturally the scale in Bournonville, as La Sylphide with smaller, more subtle movements. Here exuberance is needed, and you don't ever get it. Agree that Hiltin's (mainly, what some arms and legs, and not only that, then they move! oh yes, I love her in the balcony Scene) and Fairchild. I'm never going to like a Romeo (most likely) as much as Corella (who is the focus even with someone like Alessandra Ferri, he is so perfectly cast as Romeo. I don't think I've seen the Ashton, mainly the Cranko, which I saw a lot back in the late 70s, and the McMillan. Much preferred these, they are expansive, not boxed-in and -up. But Ms. Hyltin worth the whole fairly pedestrian business, I hadn't seen her before, and didn't know how exquisite she is.

I can see why you might think that, but I see it as guts on her part, or just good instincts, to ask them whenever she gets the chance--because she might not get another--I like what Jack said, to try to 'get him to say something more valuable than he has said already', 'anything', which is how a hard-nosed journalist has to work incidentally--not necessarily knowing what it might be in advance. He's not Sarah Palin, but 'gotcha questions' have to be done, esp. when there is so much talk (and more excellent by this morning, which will help my dread ordeal of having to give up the first part of my Sunday afternoon since I've shot my mouth off...), and if we've now heard her ask even one eyeball-to-eyeball question of Martins, even if he didn't answer it, then the fact that she is also part of NYCB board proves her integrity as a good journalist still more. I wish there were more of this kind of fearlessness. At NYReview of Books, for example, you have writers who will hardly ever say anything even slightly perjorative about the other contributors even when it is warranted (and this includes some of the best writers they have that agree to keep some things 'in-house'). Here Stahl is cutting through such 'clubbishness', and I find this admirable and pretty rare. And although it won't lead to 'change' in terms of what's already showing on television, it may well lead to some new thinking through of what Sander0 said, and others, about why this piece had to be exposed so, aside from the usual crass necessity.

That's just Stahl's style. I've known for some years that she's a big patron of NYCB just from looking through the Playbills. She's the second big TV journalist to be on the board of directors that I know of, the first Robert McNeil (he may still be, and there may be others I don't know about), who hosted a big NYCB 'Dance in America' (I think?) in the early or mid-90s. He's a lot more naturally easygoing, the way you describe it it sounds like she was trying to work with the material in much the way she does with things in which she's more well-informed. C'est normale, it wouldn't be a Lesley Stahl interview without a little nagging. Most of the big TV interviewers are like that, it's just some know how to do it without the prodding showing (Ms. Walters is amazing that way, and gets people to tell all sorts of things they'd surely promised themselves they wouldn't!). Yeah, that was a good question, because it seems from most reports here that we might not have been any more'ready' for than we were for the 'Swan Lake' and 'Sleeping Beauty' he made, and this could have been a clever way to say 'did we really need this R + J?' Most here seem to be answering 'not that much', but he could hardly be expected to see it as being anything other than urgent necessity.