papeetepatrick

And with this we get just the opposite--a beautiful face in yet another absurd construction. This is the second crazy thing I've seen Ms. Blanchett wear, the other was like these boards in front of breasts. This one reminds me of the Royal Box at the Mariinsky. http://oscar.com/redcarpet/?g=0&i=10 Just looked through Carbro's linked gallery, and Ruby Dee, Penelope Cruz, and Josh Lucas all look good too, and Cameron Diaz maybe the most sensational I saw. Viggo downplaying his handsomeness, but can wear anything.

Most are probably familiari with this filming of 'Grand Pas de Quatre' as well as 'Giselle' Adagio divided between the 4 earlier on, and some pas de deux at the beginning, cest-a-dire, Peter Schaufuss, Michal Denard, James Urbain and Jorge Esquivel joined the ladies at the beginning and even danced solos themselves! Charming conversations among Fracci and Alonso especially, with Thesmar and Evdokimova (I'm not familiar with her), before all numbers, which give an interesting modern-day form of the 'Grand Pas de Quatre', Alonso slightly dominating in both. Several of us have been discussing her a great deal lately, and I now could remember some of the more charming moments of her dancing in 1979 when I saw a lot of it. She's got a lot of comic talent in the Grand Pas as well, and there is just the daintiest femininity all over the place. Have to admit that for pure pleasure in watching dancing I probably love Fracci the most, and every time I've seen her (never in person, unfortunately), it's always got this ethereal quality. I always enjoy Peter Schaufuss's most unique definition of what 'grace' might mean, and Denard is also a great favourite of mine. Anybody have 'Giselle' preferences among these which are cleverly allowed to all dance part of Act II Adagio?

A combination, maturing over about 10 years, of Nureyev in 'Sleeping Beauty' with Royal Ballet, Hayden in 'Swan Lake Act II', Farrell in Mejia's 'Romeo and Juliet' and Balanchine's 'Mozartiana', and McBride in 'Le Baiser de la Fee'.

Oh, good Lord, yes! he's one of the geniuses of Great Pianism of the 20th Century, a thoroughly unique artist, and most of the wild eccentricities are fascinating as well. The G Major Prelude from Book II of the WTC is in its own little minute, quite as incredible as his work in the big pieces. I mean--that was before robots and faked recordings--and this little piece alone sounds the whir of a lyrebird. He is also great, as you probably know, in Mozart sometimes too; and his great passion for 'The Siegfried Idyll' made him have to possess it by transcribing it to piano and recording it. Unfortunately, this magnificent romantic piece is never going to sound as good as it does with Toscanini's glorious orchestra, but Gould probably manages to come up with the most amazing version that would have been possible, because of his extraordinary ear and technique. I think that was an experiment that was mostly for his own enjoyment, but most of what he does is most fascinating, and there is a great deal of it. For myself, I wouldn't even really want the 80 CD's, because most or even all of his work can still be found rather easily, and I prefer to pick and choose.

That casting is as good as the original. I saw it a few months after it opened, Dean Jones was in it I think less than 2 months, because Larry Kert was already in it by then, and he was superb. But I can quite as easily see Chakiris being pure magic, possibly even better than Kert--Chakiris was a great showguy. Julie Wilson is quite a babe, I saw her at the Carlyle 20 years ago, and just 2 years ago she was at a small club called Helen's in the West Village, which has since closed. Talk about a trouper, she was one (hopefully still is). But that kind of sleek urbane style is not being cultivated the way it used to be. It's not only not the mode in the country as a whole, it's not even the mode in Manhattan any more. Esparza was the best in this production vocally, he is simply without any trace of romanticism as I understand it. This is actually a very romantic show because of the lushness of the music, and maybe even because of the somewhat absurd ending, but this has gone mostly unnoticed, and nothing in this production was concerned with it. 'Follies' is very romantic as well, Sondheim's subsequent works all less so IMO (even including 'Little Night Music', although I like it well enough).

I think both are meant to be sung to tear the house down. 'The Little Things We Do Together', 'Not Getting Married Today' , 'Sorry Grateful', and 'The Ladies Who Lunch' (all done by the married friends) are all as important, it taken all together, as 'Barcelona', 'You Could Drive a Person Crazy' (in the original this is strictly Andrews Sisters good camp, not those honks on the saxes, with the tempo slowed down, just as with everything else), and 'Another Hundred People'. Plus, there is 'Have I Got a Girl for Your' which is wedded to 'Someone Is Waiting', but does NOT segue immediately into 'Another Hundred People' before anything has had a chance to give off its particular fragrance. Even the big chorus numbers of 'Company', the title song, and 'Side by Side by Side' are big numbers, and for the latter, this production provided even less minimal choreography than Lucille Ball mastered in the movie of 'Mame'. I think the greatest stroke of genius from the lyrics standpoint is in the bridge of 'Little Things You Do Together': "It's not hope of God and the decade ahead that allows you to get through the worst.. It's 'I do' and 'you don't' and 'nobody said that' and 'who brought the subject up first?'" The show is mostly acid until the end, and I have to admit that this version forces the fact that the show always insisted upon 'marriage' as the only alternative to 'being alone', and about this we should have even protested at the time, because it was a mere artifice even at the beginning. Seen with none of the 70s atmosphere, you do see this somewhat contrived ending more clearly (but B'way musicals are not operas, and they are not quite 'Mahagonny' either.)

Especially since Donna McKechnie's fantastic erotic dance after 'Barcelona' and close to 'Side by Side by Side' (I just checked, the number is called 'Tick Tock', not listed as such on the album, I believe) is never alluded to by any other kind of gesture, mention, or what-have-you. So, in listening to the cast album, it's possible that you might not have known that that was definitely a big thing in there. And yet it was her role in this show that made her a big star who would then go on to 'A Chorus Line' and while the original production played, it was one of the reasons that such a sophisticated show could last as long as it did. There wasn't anything erotic in this new production, but the McKechnie dance was accompanied by lurid music that was part of ushering in all kinds of erotica that would explode in a year or two with Linda Lovelace and Friends giving it the kick-off. You'd never know from this version that we live now in a world that has exponential porno increase since 1970. Our world is defined not by sexual profligacy and cyberworlds, but rather that 'people of our generation don't smoke'.

Exactly where it was proved to be most unbearable. Easily the greatest song in the show, it is here sung completely without any of the loneliness, and yes, 'beautiful loneliness' (although I try not to indulge in this sort of thing, but think Sondheim legitimately achieved it here) by this big smiling girl who would have done as well to sing it in North Korean for all she understood of 'it's a city of strangers...and they find each other in the crowded streets and the guarded parks...look I'll call you in the morning or my service will explain...' I don't know, but count ME lucky. About a year ago I found it on VHS in a sellout for 2 bucks, and you have inspired me to finally watch it. I'll report on it on this thread. Is that ever true, and the one thing that this production proved; but I think most people knew this beforehand anyway, so who needed this infernal deconstruction so that we could see that Furth's book was no more transferable to the 21st non-smoking century (I could not believe the crap about smoking in there) than is 'Oklahoma!' What's disturbing is that this survived on Broadway for 6 months, far longer than the 1995 version, which started off-Broadway then opened only to close very quickly. But last night I found snippets on the web of that version, and although the girl La Chanze doesn't please me in the same way Pam Myers did in 'Hundred People', it was infinitely better than this decaf version, and the 1995 version had all the instrumentation intact, from what I could tell. There is marvelous counterpoint in the orchestration that was totally thrown out for this carrying around of musical instruments--and Brantley says this proves that the otherwise unenviable married people were nevertheless 'making music' that Bobby (who never plays an instrument until his absurd piano-lounge version of 'Being Alive') was just not going to be doing as a result of being unmarried. Actually, I remember thinking also that the production didn't feel comfortable updated to the present either, so that the feeble talk of 'not smoking' still was combined only with old 70's style drinking and pot-smoking, and there were no computers either. It ended up seeming what one might call 'vaguely 1983', given that they hadn't even thought through the styles, and even then got praise for one perfectly ordinary minimalist set that just looks like any number of restaurants from any of the last 4 decades.

I didn't know him personally, but did sing in the Juilliard Chorus conducted by him when we sang a Haydn Mass. I remember very well how he was able to pull the performance into something way beyond anything that had even remotely occurred in our rehearsals. It was quite a magical sensation, that performance, and this made up for the fact that we all hated to attend Chorus and some got F's for not going. That same year, his assistant conducted us in the Faure 'Requiem' and this was much better in rehearsals, just dissipating once we got on stage; I could barely stay awake. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/arts/mus...?ref=obituaries

Oh well. I'll start with the positives. There were two: the opening title song seemed to give promise that one might experience a fairly good revival of the show. Secondly, the song 'Bless This Day/I'm Not Getting Married Today' is well-performed and the soprano singer (I'm not sure which one she was) had the best singing voice in the show). That's it. 'Company' is THE Manhattan-Provincial Broadway Musical, much more than 'West Side Story' or anything else, and its strengths lie, I think, primarily in how deeply steeped in its time and place. I consider it one of the least revivable shows, but even with my 'hostility', this was not even passable. None of the performers was really outstanding, most were even amateurish, sometimes rising to mediocre. The instrumentation was cut down to a minimum with the actors, who are also musicians, also therefore playing parts of the score at times, and the songs are all re-scored, and this is what is supposed to be so innovative by director John Doyle and his musician associates. The result is not to hear the score, the rich plangency of synthesizers which gave the electricity of Manhattan a musical form in the original's orchestra (which you can still hear on the record, and there are samples on the web, I believe) have completely disappeared. There is no sustaining passion or mood ever present anywhere in the production. There is not even an attempt to set this in early 70s Manhattan. Alll of the electric speed of the songs has even been slowed down, which is literally incredible. As such, it is more like listening to the CD of 'Light in the Piazza' (which is to say more automated and electronic than excitingly electric, like the oriiginal 'company' so distinctively was) than it is like a real production of 'Company' once was, and still probably could be at least in fragments. I've seen several revivals in the past year--'The Apple Tree', 'Gypsy' , '110 in the Shade', and even though 'Gypsy' is the only one I like as a property as well as 'Company', all of these 3 were light-years better than this sad affair. I looked back at Ben Brantley's mostly favourable review, which I had remembered, and he just seemed to make up things as far as I could tell. I kept thinking how little charisma Raul Esparza had as Bobby, and then there is this scene after 'ladies who lunch' in which Bobby says to Joanne 'What are you looking at, my charisma? Stop looking at my charisma.' Well, she hadn't been. This one is less like something the tourists support by going to see it than like the tourists are now finally getting to 'be on Broadway'. It simply had no character.

Thanks, dirac, will take a look tomorrow. I'm pretty familiar with most of his details. None of the other films is on video or DVD, they are nearly impossible to see without going to enormous trouble, and this would not be worth it for me. He wrote 'cine-romans' for all them after making the films, and I've read the one for 'Les Glissements Progressifs au Plaisir'. I prefer the novels that were just novels first, and have a marvelous book, though, called 'the Film Career of Alain Robbe-Grillet, which includes much criticism of each one when it was current. What is striking is the incredible sophistication and intricacy of the French critics of this kind of thing--you can't fake your way past those types, and that was very much a part of high modernist movements in all the arts. Students criticizing Pierre Boulez's 2nd Sonata, a huge feat of complexity for a young man, were perfectly happy to dismiss all this discipline, for example with a mere 'mais oui! tres decoratif...' We don't have precisely that kind of tradition here. You can see some of what I mean in Rohmer films, where the characters are often discussing Kant and Hegel even when that is not their primary field. (there's no relation between Rohmer's and Robbe-Grillet's work, by the way, at least as far as I can see.)

And banished those from court who made imperfect gestures, so he was also OFFstage as an audience for his courtiers, disciplining them at whim. I always find the Hyacinth Rigaud portrait amusing, and one easily imagines his delicate prancing when listening to Lully.

It would be according to the person(s) viewing it. When Nureyev could not really dance anymore and continued to, many people still went to worship at the altar of the Nureyev-god, and many are still yelling about how horrible it was. It's a matter of what the market for something is. It is not something that can be proven. Those who enjoyed Alonso's dancing when she was very old do not have to look at it as some failing on her part that she 'didn't know when to stop.' More important than that is simply the fact that she did it, and fauxpas has pointed out that even in 1984 there were some things she could still do extremely well. I've already stated that I do not care for this ancient-ballerina kind of thing personally, and did not care for Alonso's Giselle in 1979. But I simply do not see it as a serious offense when the star has clearly 'paid her dues'. Perhaps I would if I also loved Giselle, but even I did not think her dancing in 1979 was 'grotesque', just not that of a young person. I liked that she had the nerve to keep on doing it, and so did many others, it's a kind of fire that certain 'monstres sacres', as faux pas puts it, do have. Whether they 'have the right to do this' is beside the point in a sense, because they did go ahead and do it. What I do if I find something offensive, as I think I would find the current ABT 'Sleeping Beauty', is to inquire about it and then decide to not ever see it (which I quite profoundly have done.) If I see it anyway and find it offensive, I can still say so, but not expect to convince anyone else that this is so--after a point, one 'knows when to stop'. If somebody ancient and technically not still able to do Aurora were trying to do it, I would not want to see this, as 'Sleeping Beauty' matters to me the way 'Giselle' does to you. I don't go to the ballet for an 'emotional punch' so much, and in any case, I've already been explicit about what Giselle does for me (little). I admit I do have a hard time hearing voices that have become intolerable to the ear, and have never quite understood how Gwyneth Jones was allowed to sing in the Chereau/Boulez 'Ring Cycle' at Bayreuth in the early 80s, as her voice had become extremely harsh in places--but if Boulez allowed it, he had to have known what he was doing, so I accepted it. But old artists always have their fans to support them, almost no matter what they do. I'm not fan enough of any one performer to continue forever with a star myself, otherwise I'd be as interested in Suzanne Farrell's dance company as I have long been in her own dancing--but I'm not, so in that sense I am not able to be the full-fledged fan that Farrell Fan and a couple of others are on this site, whether of Alonso, Farrell, Nureyev or whoever else.

Several have mentioned Jackie Onassis. She and sister Lee Radziwill were very close friends of Nureyev, and obviously major ballet attendees. I don't know if Lee still is, but probably. I just remembered that, during her Viking Press days in the 70s, Jackie wrote a long paean to Nureyev in the New York Times Magazine. It was considerably more inspired than the other one I read of hers in that publication-about Diana Vreeland; although that one was very good too, because, on looking back, she stuck strictly to reportage rather than her own opinions.

This is interesting, because we end up with two possibilities for 'fanatics'--both 'Alonso fanatics' and 'Giselle fanatics.' As neither, I can enjoy the 1964 film along with you, while not finding the ballet's choreography 'sacred'. This is impossible for me except in isolated fragments, since I never intend to look beyond Adam's meagre offering. Wasn't this the ballet that made Suzanne Farrell, upon seeing Rudi/Margot do it, decide once and for all that she did not want to do the full-length Romantic ballets? Yes, I am pretty sure, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure she enjoyed the great pair, but I can also see why this ballet might be the tipping point for Farrell, whose 'divaship' (campy new word) was always of a more introverted and possibly less obviously self-referential variety. The performance is not a 'fair representative of who she was as a ballerina' when taken alone, of course. That's why I have wanted to see the 1964 film and earlier footage and clips, which I intend to get to. But it is part of 'who she was as a ballerina' simply because she did do it; one can then accept or reject it for oneself. If necessary, think of Garbo fans whose every glimpse of her walking in an old knockabout men's coat on the East Side was as precious to them as were the great performances in 'Camille' or 'Grand Hotel' (maybe some considered them more precious.)

From the newsrooms, Lesley Stahl and Robin MacNeil, formerly of the NewsHour. I think he was on the Board as well, and may still be, in any case, I think it was early or mid 90s when he hosted a series of PBS specials and I believe interviewed Peter Martins in one of them.

Thanks, both Helene and carbro, and I certainly should have remembered my own observation of Kistler in 'Serenade' and 'Midsummer Night's Dream' in 2004 and 2005. Especially 'Serenade' was strangely cloying and melancholy, and yet I wasn't at all aware of why I couldn't quite appreciate it! I kept trying, but you're right, it was too much like a memory for me, but on the other hand, 'Serenade' does have a wistful quality to it that, now that I look back on it, I find that in another sense I really did enjoy her in it, even then (I think I saw her do it twice in 2004). (and brava for having the courage to say it, carbro.)

Good point, and I had remembered yesterday how well-used Jacques d'Amboise was in the video of 'davidsbundlertanze', and could think of no other examples quite like that, in which his technical losses actually added dramatically to the character, making Farrell seem even younger, maybe 19 even. Do you have others in mind, Helene, if I may ask, at NYCB? I think you saw them more than I did in the 70s and 80s, and so did many others here, although I saw my share. And yes, of couirse Nureyev, obviously.

Usually, yes. And of course, it's obvious to anyone, including fans, what you are talking about. But you cannot disagree in purely reasonable and logical terms with the reaction someone could have had that is quite the contrary to what one's own is. When artists who become legendary continue to perform after their technique has largely disappeared, they have earned that right--if only because there are those 'adoring crowds' who may well be allowing their legend to continue to ride the wave of this diva-type thing as well as those who do not care to see it this way. If you are not involved in the specific persona, you cannot experience this yourself, but you cannot also determine that someone else could not legitimately do so (I doubt you meant it quite that harshly). Not terribly steeped in this persona myself, I did not care to see Alonso dancing Giselle at that age, but I consider that beside the point: Even those performances when Alonso was very old and technically waning are part of who she is. I had not given this much thought before either: If we come to ballet (as I did) through the New York City Ballet, we are not going to ever see this sort of mutation, but neither can we determine that that is the only viable way to go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/books/19...?ref=obituaries Not to everybody's taste, but one of the most important artists of the last half of the 20th century for me. Wrote 'Last Year at Marienbad', collaborating with Alain Resnais on one of the great art-films of what could probably be called in hindsight The Golden Age of Art Films (because it's not like that now). These were strange, cinematic novels full of abrupt cutting and skewing of surface incidents all over the place. Especially liked 'La Maison de Rendezvous' and 'La Belle Captive', which is a lavish volume full of prints of Magritte paintings, which are woven into the text, sometimes literally, sometimes obliquely. Was denounced by Saul Bellow when he accepted his Nobel Prize, but it didn't really take, and Robbe-Grillet paid it no attention--it was never going to be possible for this kind of fiction to have a wide audience, and he knew that.

Super, Amanda! I can't thank you enough, and I would never have known it, rarely watching TV and never looking at TV guides of any sort. Really look forward to seeing this, as I have never forgot seeing the original, and this revival sounds as though it must be much better than the mid-90s one.

Yes! You simply can't miss them and you even made me look up to find out exactly what they mean, to be sure I had appreciated the right thing without knowing for sure what it was; they were really delightful. I'm gradually getting hold of all the terms again (I once knew them.) Thank you. I loved Mirta Pla though, too. And didn't mind the bad picture quality due to liking some of these old antique films, has some of same problems of graininess as in Kirov 'Sleeping Beauty' movie. She did remind me somehow of Fracci here, although I haven't seen Fracci's 'Giselle'.

Ah well, I see I was wrong, and checked my files to find that she was recovering from one of her many surgeries at the time of the Plisetski Cuban 'Giselle', so I wonder if there are any videos from her days with Youskevitch extant, as atm711 has pointed out this as 'her prime'. This is what I haven't yet seen, and hope to do so. Any information about 40s and 50s Alonso filmed performances would be greatly appreciated.

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=26613 If you would, I'd appreciate comments on my post from Friday, about the 1964 'Giselle'. Perhaps there were some mixups in communication, someone said 'she was blind then', but mustn't he have been talking about this 1980 'Giselle'. I saw her do 'Giselle' with her company at the Met in 1979 and feel somewhat like canbelto on this, but I like this black-and-white old Communist movie very much and think Alonso is exquisite in it.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but speak up, Ladies and Gentleman! Okay to leave comments here or at link to my post above, although mods will determine this...et alors?

I was going to point that out, Estelle, thank you for saving me the trouble. 'Doesn't look like the typical romantic hero'? Try 'yuck.' I think Sarkozy is very good-looking, but not romantic in any sense (compare with Louis Jourdan.) Nobody's still come up with any heads of state or politicians that inspire romantic swooning. Eventually, I think Carbro's and my idea for Benazir Bhutto could make a really great opera perhaps more than ballet, though. She's a very dramatic, and therefore romantic, figure, and much like someone from many centuries ago--noble despite all. No Bin Laden Family ballets, though, plizz...