papeetepatrick

Cristian and I have been discussing this some, since I've started watching it. I won't put too much to start off, but do want to hear from others regarding this film. I'll just say that I think the 'haunted' aspect of the rather slight material is effective in this movie, perhaps for the wrong reason, i.e., 'Giselle' is one of my least favourite of the full-length 19th century ballets. Maybe the music, which I find very insipid, is appropriate, but it's just that it goes on so long. But I still find I mind the endless corps tiny-movement sections more sweet and innocent than at the Met or in that video with Makarova, the one where I don't like her costumes. Anyway, hope to hear comments from Cristian and all others who have something to say about this movie. Give some historical detail if you have time, too. Strangest credit crawl I've ever seen, with each name lingered over for 15 seconds of real time. Interested in Alonso's dancing, apparently she was blind here, and would like to know when the peak, therefore, of her career, had been. I was impressed with her delicacy and wispy fairylikeness myself.

That one occurred to me, and she's a complex character, lots of drama, what with beauty, guts, corruption, endless turmoil, and assassination. But ballet may not be the place to deal with the complexities of Pakistan, given that they can't be dealt with anywhere else. But the Myanmar dissident, Aung San Suu Kyi, is the one who might really be an appropriate subject. With her delicate beauty and her courage, something could probably be done for an especially sensitive ballerina. Also, Wei Jengsheng, the Chinese dissident, might also be a possibility for a ballet around a male dancer. But these are not household names at all. I just can't think of any politicians or heads of state I find romantic, although they may exist. And the scandal-names only suggest more inanity.

Interesting idea, but I think shows ballet's limitations (in the best sense), because I can't think of any public figures that deserve the poetic treatment of a ballet. Nor any movie stars that wouldn't just produce some sense of redundancy. They are mostly all-business, prosaic types with a deep interest in crassness. Margaret and Dennis Thatcher? Mmmm. yummy. They're even passe enough to have had time to become romantic--and still they're not. Hillary and Bill, definitely not. Bill and Monica--perhaps, but not trying to find the physical types so much, please...

http://www.bellwethergallery.com/current_01.cfm?fid=483 (includes links to reviews in New Yorker, et alia) This is by far the best of the two, and anyone who wants to see it has to go tomorrow. I wish I'd seen it before now, as it's been there awhile and I often go here. But this is just sensational. The string sculptures do play with space in such a way that in two of them it apparently breaks it up, breaking it and re-shaping it, before you can focus on what is literally there. The most spectacular one is one of these, but a less assuming one is even more provocative: A smaller string sculpture is suspended in a black room, but is lit in such a way and the materials and design so carefully chosen that you first see the central wire shape as being against or on the wall; a few seconds later you find that it had taken control of your eyes and made it possible to see that this central figure is suspended in the center of the room. Dynamite stuff, and definitely one of the best gallery shows I've seen in many years; a conspicuously refined eye is at work here. The other is a group show at Wooster Projects, always a lovely gallery on West 15th Street. The most striking thing here is a painting by Gordon Cheung. Old Financial Times pages have paintings on them, but you can't tell whether these egg-shaped figures have been glued on or painted directly onto the newsprint. Since it's crude to touch work, I asked the owner Michele Mack, and they were painted--I would have guessed the opposite. This will be there another few weeks. http://woosterprojects.com/gordon_cheung.htm The painting I was struck by is the second on the immediately above site.

Why does Mayerling come to mind? It's soap opera for the literate classes -- those that have heard of the Habsburgs, at least. Come to think of it, so is Manon. So are so many other ballets.People seem to perceive a couple of differences between these older works, which are taken seriously and are generally not condemned for content, and pieces like those involving Britney or Diana: 1) Rudolph, Manon, etc., are long dead and therefore will not be hurt by the exploitation of the seamier side of their lives. 2) They were produced by serious artists who hae shown themselves capable of working brilliantly with more substantial subject matter. My own feeling is that the quality of the work matters a great deal -- and even excuses a great deal. The Telegraph reviewer obviously feels that the quality is not there and that this condemns the work sufficiently. I also feel that contemporary public figures whose careers have been deeply involved in the control and exploitation of their own public images -- and Diana was right up there with any pop music star -- have fewer privacy rights than the rest of us. Those who live by the press release may occasional have to die by the press release. It's sad, but it's the rules of the very risky game they themselves have chosen to play. I am ambivalent about the issues involved with allegations of "mental illness" -- something that has been alleged both in the Diana and Britney Spears cases. It's a fuzzy area full of constantly changing definitions, many of which are tossed around in the press by people with no direct professional knowledge of the celebrity involved. One could argue that the depiction of certain symptoms -- done with thought and care -- could actually increase public awareness of mental illness and sympathy for those who suffer from it (or on its edges). The mental illness is not an invention of the gutter press, you need no more than the daily to weekly headlines from the Associated Press to know that they didn't make up how she did a hit-and-run a few months ago, married some childhood sweetheart a few years ago for the thrill of it, has been in and out of rehab, shaved her head, etc. The press cultivates it and does contribute to the developments, but she could have easily moved out of town if she was not ill, and possibly afraid to be away from situations, children are involved and the rest. Court decisions about visitation rights for Britney Spears are not earth-shaking news, but neither are they fabricated. I never read anything about her off my Verizon Home Page which has Associated Press breaking news items. That's the only reason I know about any of the Party Girls of Hollywood. The better comparison would be a ballet about Paris Hilton. This is not a 'troubled girl', but rather spoiled, silly, funny and condescending, even hateful. She's not an addict, even if she has one too many, so the public hates her more than Britney Spears. Americans in particular have sympathy for someone who is obviously sick instead of flaunting their 'fabulousness', as Hilton does. It was so incredibly important to the public that Hilton serve her time for a minor (comparatively) violation that they were screaming all over the place, and Al Sharpton made yet another absurd Photo Op for himself by alleging 'race favoritism' when Hilton was released early, even though by the time for his Shining Moment, she'd already been put back in. The other starlets would spend 82 and 84 minutes in jail, and there was no outcry when they were released. This is because if you are not crippled, and are merely 'sinning', then you 'deserve' the full force of the proletarian rage. A ballet about Hilton would be silly, insubstantial, but it could be amusing. She's got a sense of humour herself, and seemed to enjoy getting the Harvard Lampoon's Woman of the Year Award last week. She is more like Mavis Weld in Chandler's 'The Little Sister', whom he described as a 'loose Hollywood babe without much morals', but it had been the very righteous 'little half-sister' who'd done the ice-pick work. Margaret Cho already did some performance-art after Spears's failed MTV Awards appearance, it was discussed on all blogs frivolous and serious, and people 'feel sorry for her'. I can see how various forms of work about 'mental illness symptoms' might lead to greater public awareness, but not an obviously exploitative ballet work about a tabloid queen, because that's what the theme is--tabloid queen with problems and let's enjoy this crap; it is not about raising consciousness--or a serious work without a Famous Name to go with it could have done quite as well, and a lot better. 'Bad parenting', I would also note, does not preclude 'mental illness' even straight up, as it were, and is well-known to be the cause of a lot of it. Also, 'Mayerling' and the other dead-people soap operas are indeed different: even if Spears is only interested in drumming up endless publicity until she finds herself as famous as Marilyn Monroe after death, doing a ballet while the tension is only getting worse is only using the most vulgar and very same tactics as she is (and the children part would not be publicity-seeking, but rather real desperation); they want to cash in on it, and pretend at the same time they are 'being sensitive' with this homage. It is like a ballet form of Reality TV and it's repulsive. I don't see any grey areas in this myself.

I suppose not, I'm probably only 99.99% sure. It becomes then difficult to explain why it's obvious that using a celeb's own tactics to get attention would be inappropriate to ballet, especially the totally lame remarks by the makers that Cristian quoted. Even if a 'homage to Britney' was possible, that's a total contradiction in terms for ballet dancers to do it. No such homage exists except in the imaginations of the bubble-headed fans and the TMZ.com junkies, so it's clear at least to me that Rambert was only doing exploitation PLUS. Of course, they could pretend to be sincere (and have done), so it's according to whether you believe anything they say. Even if it's not 'mocking', to be more specific, it's exploitative on some level, and IMO that's hard to get around, at least some form of obvious exploitation. It's difficult to see a 'ballet homage to Britney' growing up as some organic thrusting force. Their attempt at 'sincerity' seems even dumber than just using it like Britney herself does (but with considerably less innocence, as they're not being committed to hospitals and then allowed to drive, etc.)

No, but I hope it comes to ABT. Any casting suggestions for ABT? I am thinking that Diana Vishneva (in a long blonde wig) has the edgy desperation for the part and the dramatic range. How about Marcelo Gomes as her paparazzo boyfriend? Angel or Ethan Stiefel as K-Fed? Ethan could do the slacker/stoner thing very well. The mind boggles... Perhaps Kevin McKenzie could come back to the stage in the mime role of Dr. Phil? I don't care who does it. All they need is the sets for the current production of 'Sleeping Beauty', tart them up a little more, maybe have some guesting from NYCB, Ashley Bouder for the Paris Hilton drunk-party-period. I only said the original flip remark because of various forms of ABT publicity. The twain therefore will therefore soon meet, since these things do happen. Each TV persona must have his/her own ballet, including Connie Chung, who won't be content with a mere 'Maury'. Yeah, I know, who's connie chung by now? The Boston Globe referred to her as 'The China Woman from Television', and I agree that in this discussion such a title is the first really fine idea I've yet heard (use the same 'Sleeping Beauty' Valentine's Candy Box sets for that too). A seriously interesting something or other really could be made called 'Celeb DUI' because it now is so epidemic that little choreography is needed and celebs themselves could play themselves inside Car Cutouts (every time Britney does a new stint in something or other, she is immediately seen driving all over L.A., fresh from rehab or whatever and with or without a license). This can include then, Tom Sizemore, Paris, Britney, Paris's brother (maybe the parents will have been caught by then, too), Tom Sizemore, Amy Winehouse, Ben Affleck, Gary Collins, Lindsay Lohan and Heidi Fleiss, who always needs the publicity. Could be done on the cheap.

I'd let this just pass, but Spears does have a real, if minor, talent. From a purely vocal standpoint, she sings better than Madonna ever did--on a CD from 2003 I recently listened to just to inform myself, although she is not truly great like Natalie Maines of The Dixie Chicks (hardly anybody in pop is right now.) So no way would hearing her sing be on the level of this repulsive 'ballet' (what a ridiculous misuse of the work, and in this case, one does not even have to see it to know, the only indisputable case of this I am sure of: Ms. Croce didn't think she needed to see 'Still/Here', I know I don't need to wait to see 'Britney the Ballet' before passing judgment); and Cristian's quotes are appreciated, as these two, Essikow and Nixon,seem want to add a disclaimer to their complete and total indulgence in a shameful project--almost as if they were forced to do it against their will, hence this deep 'homage'. I wonder if they ever heard of career suicide. They definitely have earned a few lean years and a few dark theaters.

I, too, appreciate this, and didn't know I could go back to Standard. The outline way is ungainly in several ways, including the way it re-schedules posts when new ones interacts with them in some way (and these are mostly unnecessary re-arrangements, even if they do 'make sense'--it's just most people don't need that kind of spoonfeeding to navigate a simple thread, and would prefer to make their own decisions on what they want to juxtapose). I've been irritated by this for some weeks, and am so glad you asked Amy.

He was also good in 1987's 'Fifty-Two Pickup' with Ann-Margret. Both were also in an even better film from 1973, a noir starring Jean-Louis Trintignant and Ann-Margret primarily, but also with Scheider and Angie Dickinson--'The Man Outside'. Few seem to have seen this, and it's probably not that easy to get.

Yes, I noticed the vacillation between the 'generous filling-out' and a sudden splintering of movement in the 'angular fashion' you describe. It was strange, but I didn't mind it because sometimes the 'big, long-lined, slow' moments that 'her natural physical endowment' would bring about would still be something I hadn't seen quite like that before. Also, the 'introverted artist' is probably part of it, and this would make some of us find arresting that very juxtaposition of the long and slow next to the splintering off into a frenetic attempt to reduce herself into the necessary delicacy. This appreciation of her art by some of us (at least in what i've seen thus far) would be accounted for by finding the unexpected, or even quite 'incorrect' things interesting in themselves--as if she were both within and without the context. It isn't something that can finally be pronounced on, because none of the central tenets of any formal art can promote what comes across as transgressive to important traditions (and I don't nearly always tolerate such transgressions, it's definitely a matter of taste), but in the late 20th century and certainly now, seeing certain kinds of 'making-individual', even if considered dreadfully vulgar, can interest us as objects in themselves. We don't really expect most other people to agree with us, nor are we concerned with whether they do. This 'introverted artist' thing you point out, though, becomes a separate domain, and can be a source of great delight even when it is even immediately adjacent to less satisfying work. I definitely like the way you describe the inability 'to be delicate', but I was only interested in her when she was given over to that long-lined movement--I'm always attracted to it; and while I respect those who don't care for her--almost all knowing much more than I do about ballet tradition--none of it has changed my impression of first seeing her Odile. I love it. And I think her style is somewhat 'modernist' in a general artistic sense perhaps more than what I would know what that term means in ballet thought.

Aurora--thank you. This is not the perfect medium for this, but for reasons you need not know, I needed to see this right now and in this form. How beautiful it is.

Totally agree, and Britten's opera 'Gloriana' doesn't age well either. That's part of the beauty of them, that they were majestic but ephimeral as well.

Thank you, Leigh, I'm glad standards are being upheld for those of us who can't update without pain . I became so well-known for weird attachment to the PanAm logos that an old lady friend found 2 old PanAm blankets of the sort used on the planes--at an Eglise de St. Bernard rummage sale on 14th Street. PAMTGG (speaking slightly more seriously) sounds like one of those that are too dated. I think 'Glass Pieces' is already very dated, and I wouldn't see it again. At the risk of bordering on rudeness, hasn't 'Friandises' already evaporated, in any case I rather doubt it's constantly on people's minds as something they eagerly anticipate, being soooooo 2005 as it is...

You have convinced me that they need to revive this. I used to work occasionally for United Media (Peanuts/Schultz, etc.) in the period when the PanAm Building was turning into MetLife. I so loved the logo at the top of the building, and even the building itself (which everybody else hated), that I suffered Proustian pain when they changed the PanAm sign--and for several years I would always get upset when I'd see all that early 60s-style zingy jet-set stuff having been changed into a deathful horror. I even had an argument with my boss that it was STILL the PanAm Building! I later found they'd shipped the sign to Florida, where I think it is in some sort of weirdish little museum. But I now am the only person who wants to see PAMTGG revived, because I never saw it, and it would make the city a better place to live in again...

I think 'Fountain of Bakshisarai' could be 'gently laid by', as some of the New Age things say. If the mere presence of Sizova in something won't transform it, it probably is hopeless, isn't it? Oh well, some people may like that androgynous character that I haven't had the patience to figure out yet (and won't, but somebody can tell me.) I wonder if maybe it never is done anyway.

Hans, is this based on a performance you saw in the last few days in Washington, where it has apparently been altered at least somewhat, or did you also see it last year in New York, when the reviews were reflecting this 'cartoonlike' thing that turned me off too. I was interested in the other reviews, but I have serious reason for wanting to know, as it may or may not affect some plans. Did Balanchine say that specifically about 'Sleeping Beauty?' I seem to have realize it's my favourite ballet, too, and I therefore hope so. Before you answer the above, though, I still think it's likely I want to see another company's SB perhaps a bit more than ABT's. I don't like ABT's 'Swan Lake' at all, but a 'Sleeping Beauty' I didn't like would be still more upsetting. Thanks. Related to Sander0's discussion of modernized operas, I usually don't like extreme stretchings, bringing Pelleas and Melisande up to the current date, for example. But I recently watched DVD's of Kirov 'Boris Godunov' and also Bolshoi. The Tarkovsky production (not sure who did the costumes and sets) was less traditional and simpler while remaining lavish in many ways, but the Bolshoi was much more opulent in a more traditional sense (I think this is right, although my knowledge of Russian opera is just beginning, and I'm reaching for stereotypes, as it were.) I liked both quite a lot, although I don't know which one I prefer.

Glad you brought up Classic Arts Showcase, which I've often enjoyed. Just found early info on it and its excellent founder, Lloyd Rigler. http://www.classicartsshowcase.org/timesArtic.html His 2003 obituary is also interesting. I think I used to see it also on Channel 31, as well as Susan Jaffe's 'Dance New York', but not sure. Did Jaffe do this after her retirement in 2002 (I think) and for just a year or so? I saw lots of good things on it and she was a lovely host.

Many thanks, innopac. I hadn't really thought they could suppress such things from the internet so thoroughly.

I'd also add that, while I thought 'The Aviator' was a well-made failure, it was primarily to me because DiCaprio was very good but not insane. About 10 days ago, that dreadful 'On Faith' blog that WaPo has (dreadful because the blog-writing is the palest imaginable, you haven't any idea how they can pass this off at first, then when you do realize how, it's even worse), there was a link to Tom Cruise's Scientology video that even Scientology wanted to suppress; and a few days later, they again did, because links I sent to people to watch this were no longer working. It's almost indescribable what you see in his presentation of such things as 'You're either IN or you're OUT' and 'It's because you're a Scientologist. And you better know it...you better know it..' with the ostinato of the 'Mission Impossible' theme going on below (but generally unrecognized by the blog commenters, who were primarily interested in an old-fashioned religion-fight; and amusing because Cruise was all about how this was 'Mission Possible to the Point of Fore-Ordained' and how he 'wants to get rid of all those SPECTATORS', I don't know about the movie audience ones). But while his impromptu performances like this are stellar more in his own mind, such insanity suited 'Magnolia' perfectly, and he outshone his then-wife in 'Eyes Wide Shut' by light-years, IMO. If he'd done Howard Hughes, it would have required absolutely no effort whatsoever, just like falling off a log; he would have been, with prodding by a director, able to CHANNEL Howard Hughes, not just struggle like a mere actor like DiCaprio to turn in the best performance he could without having to become borderline.

Definitely revolting, but the ballet, by merely doing it, is worse than the media coverage, because that is what they do. Turning this into a ballet is an insult to everybody--not just to Ballet, to a troubled girl, to all art everywhere--but to everybody in the world, at least who will read of it.

No, she just made it clear that she couldn't or wouldn't take care of it herself. From the article: "But in any case, before he died in 1977, Nabokov made clear that he wanted those cards destroyed. At the time, the task fell to V.N.'s adored and devoted wife, Véra, but for one reason or another, by the time she died in 1991, she had not gotten around to putting a match to Laura. " Either this is true, however he made the request, or we need not take the article seriously.

No, but I hope it comes to ABT.

If this is the case, then it's not an interesting joke, nor in any way amusing. It would be only a way of indulging himself at others' expense, by wasting immense amounts of their time, if Dimitri was 'in on the joke' (or NOT), it would be like Humbert Humbert raping 'Lolita'. I don't believe this is the case, but if it is, then such questions as 'what of the dead person's wishes should be honoured' are strictly Not Applicable, and the whole business with Rosenbaum is cheap, repulsive publicity. I don't believe this, as I said. I think he did not want the manuscript published, and since it's clearly written out, and then Mme. Nabokov simply 'never got around to it', it begins to sound like something maybe Salvador Dali would do as a 'joke', which in that case would be only to prove that 'the dead are perhaps not past caring'; but not something Nabokov would do, as 'Lolita', if nothing else, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Nabokov is not silly. In other words, if it is released against Nabokov's will, then that is at least something--bad, IMO, but it exists as a comprehensible piece of phenomenology. If it's just a 'lavish joke' in which everybody who is involved with it in any way, including us commenting on it today, then it is not even worth discussing. But I can't see how that just because he could have physically destroyed them himself that it means there is any likelihood that he just wanted to pull an endless prank that would propel him well beyond his mortality--but providing him with the immortality not of the Great Writer, which 'Lolita' gives him, but rather the immortality of the Buffoon. He would have to be a special kind of thanatophobe to want that sort of immortality, and I never could imagine he did. If this really is possible, then please inform.

Lots of interesting questions there. I think we would all like to believe that our last wishes will be honored by our nearest and dearest after we’ve bought the farm. On the other hand, the dead are dead. They’re past caring, and it would be a shame to lose anything by an artist like Nabokov, even undistinguished apprentice work, which this manuscript plainly isn’t. Any opinions? Yes, it does matter what V.N. would feel, because he laid down the law on this when he was alive, not dead. In a sense, if the manuscript is allowed into public domain, it's Dimitri's work, not Nabokov's, because one is then reading something illegitimate. It is greedy and it is totally disrespectful. The work has much more mystery if left unread by scholars and public alike. Dimitri could still talk about it, people don't have to have access to everything. It's probably some father-son psychological entanglement and there could be feelings of inferiority as there often is with a great parent, I don't know. But it's to me just another example of exploitation of the individual as a disposable commodity that has become even more popular in the current era than in the past. It's much as though the great artist is told 'well, you gave us more than almost anyone else, so why not this too? Shouldn't we have some say?' Wasn't there a video of some cocaine being used near Heath Ledger at some party or event quashed yesterday? I was surprised that it would be. I wouldn't read the 'Laura' book, and I hope that anyone who does will read it accompanied by 'I am reading something that the author didn't want me to read' going on the entire time. Because it is not Nabokov's work you are then reading, as it is with 'Ada' or 'Lolita'. You are reading something about Dimitri. Otherwise, forget copyright laws, do condensed books of 'Lolita', allow overt plagiarism, not just the 'crytomnesia' described in the article, and let Balanchine be danced literally anywhere and by anybody, in new popularized versions and in Disney movies, with Kristen Chenoweth as Maria Tallchief, just like Fosse's work was slaughtered in the movie of 'Chicago'. At least Dimitri refused to tell Rosenbaum who had the other key to the safe. Impossible that Rosenbaum could see it as any other than trying to get everything exposed, although he does some 'passing the buck' to Dimitri as if he himself had been somewhat victimized by the matter (yes, he hasn't got the results he wanted yet).