papeetepatrick

Bonnette, I know this may sound like a silly question, but do you see an amazon search box next to the logo now?

No, Helene, I just see the Ballet Alert header now; there is a small Amazon search box at the very bottom of the page.

This is what I have right now too, the Amazon search box at the bottom. It looks better than it did earlier when the box looked sort of crowded in at the top, although I wasn't paying much attention. I don't remember an Amazon box at the bottom before, though. It was always at the very top, wasn't it?

So far, so good. Thanks, all.

Just curious: Why? (Why change the name back to 'Ballet Alert'? Nothing wrong with it but we were chugging along fine as 'Ballet Talk,' no?)

Alexandra and Helene give the practical reason, but I think this has a lot more character as well, coming as it does from something charming from the past (I didn't know about Croce's telephone tree until recently on the 'star system or not' thread.) But 'Ballet Talk' is pretty colorless by comparison, even though, sure, we were doin' all right.

Agree with Mel, and I obviously hallucinated that exclamation point.

Best it's ever looked, although I thought that was an accident with the big red Ballet Alert! one of the disruptions. Much bolder and more impressive. I remember that awful mint-green year or two we had in the old software, although we were all polite about how beautiful it was...this really does look a thousand times better. One of the many reasons this is a better holiday season than usual, esp. for many Americans and New Yorkers.

Kistler's dress in #25, "Gotta Dance" was doing a dance of its own.

Yeah, that one was beautiful, Darci and La Fosse do look wonderful there.

I think some of these were in their last round, weren't they? That we saw a year or two ago? I'm interested that I like this kind of thing less and less, it's pretty much froufrou, and some of them are awful.

The only ones I really liked were Gelsey and Miss Thomas (that's the best one IMO) and Farrell. The worst is Baryshnikov as window-washer on skyscraper, or whatever that nonsense is. The Bolle not really cheesey to me so much, as just inept and graceless. I wouldn't have thought a dancer wouldn't know something that real underwear models do, but they clearly don't. The problem is either go all the way with that sort of thing or don't do it at all. Bolle's looks more like an old Maidenform ad than what he's aiming for here, but I think we saw it before anyway, didn't we? 'Cheesy' is what I'd call that gross Ethan Stiefel thing on the motorbike.

I recall liking some of Allegra's the most the last time we had these sorts of collections, but this one a bit de trop. Who knows? maybe it's the same one.

yielding an American hero straight out of Kerouac—the sweet-natured kind of guy who ends each sentence with the hint of a question, a slight upturn in tone that leaves the intent hanging, and who executes every ballet step, no matter how complex, with a throwaway, this-is-easy style, suggesting that there’s more to come, more to be revealed—that’s Robert “Robbie” Fairchild. In sharp contrast, we have a sure-stepping blond son of coastal Connecticut, born to wear blue blazers with well-shined shoes

See what you mean about the prose, 'sure-stepping blond son of coastal Connecticut' is a total camp, but he's not bad on Mr. Fairchild, who is quite a beauty (I hadn't known that.)

Just looked again: The Herman Cornejo in the studio is pretty magical. Unfortunately, the Angel one is just that--unfortunate--as if he were trying to be a figurine or something. You don't the slightest idea what this handsome fellow is about from something of such preciosity.

In France, when a poet is asked "Who is the greatest French man of letters?" they say "Victor Hugo, alas...." As if we had to say that Edgar Allan Poe was our greatest poet, alas. WE don't have to say that, since we DO have Walt Whitman, alas.... But we do NOT have to say "our greatest choreographer? George Balanchine, alas.... there is no 'alas' to it. We can say, "Hallelujah!"

That's a matter of opinion. To me, it sounds like somebody talking about Wagner and Bayreuth in particular. As for this 'ballet is LOCAL' business, that used to be the case with me, since I started with Balanchine and still love Balanchine. But no longer. The NYCB is nominally the 'LOCAL' ballet company of New York, maybe even a bit more than ABT, but while I'll go to NYCB if something comes up, I'm going to 'invest' in ABT, POB (when they come), and other companies. NYCB is actually a wonderful company to start with: Once you've put them in proportion, you're free to look at literally every other dance company in the world (whether ballet or anything else) and judge them clearly and fairly--because it's a case of freedom from NYCB and Balanchine as well. Which doesn't mean you give up Balanchine just because you want to 'play the field' and be totally promiscuous now.

BUT ALSO, IF YOU DON'T SEE THE RIGHT PEOPLE DANCE A CHOREOGRAPHER LIKE ASHTON, IT'S NOT VERY LIKELY THAT HIS PARTICULAR

OOPS, CAPS LOCK.....

SHALL WE SAY, SWEETNESS --

????? In any case, the Ashton people continue to re-state their devotions as well, including those on this board when they care to (Simon, leonid), and for this I am glad. I'd have never thought to even lightly concentrate on Ashton had it not been for them and a few of the other Brits. In fact, the oddest irony is that I find an enormous amount of this 'Balanchine centrism' at BT, but it's reading BT regularly for over 4 years now that's broken me of my own extreme symptoms in that direction.

Some of these new remarks are interesting, and I value them because I can see why I'm not purely Balanchine-centric, Ray put that very well, as here:

I think the kind of ignorance you're describing is certainly sad, but I think you can be both "Balanchine-centric" and well-informed (if I do say so myself!).

I suppose his immediately following remarks made me realize how I see this now. I now want to look at Balanchine and my more intense focus on his works and NYCB in particular fit in with all the consumption of all World Dance, not just ballet and modern. Ray's mention of 'emotion' and 'being moved' apply as well to me regarding Balanchine, but not more than to Martha Graham and not more even to the DVD of Ashton's 'Month in the Country' (I never saw anything like that from Balanchine.) Ultimately, it does seem like the reproduced performances ought to automatically mean that the ballet is 'lesser' to you if you only saw it there than live. Except that many things I've only seen on DVD, and some of these matter more to me than ballets I've seen many times live; so much for that, then, even though it's obviously the case if it's one you're most crazy about, it's going to have much more dimension live.

I'd say the same thing about Chinese dance, South Indian Bharata Natyam dance, Cambodian dance, they have definitely sometimes moved me as much as Balanchine. I always resisted this, in fact, didn't like that something Eastern was coming up to 'compete' with the fact that I wanted all those ballets I'd seem Farrell dance to be greater. But I didn't always think they had been greater. The Cambodian Dance I saw at the Joyce in about 1990 (stravinskyviolinconcerto brought this up at one point) definitely made me start doing a mental comparison with some of the ballets I'd seen at NYCB in fairly recent years. At the time I thought they all actually seemed more tinselly and artificial compared to the Cambodians, but by 2006 my view had changed back somewhat: the old performance of 'La Valse' in 1986, right after Joseph Duell died, seemed as meaningful to me again. And that was Balanchine.

But there have been many threads on this choosing and determining the 'one genius'. It's done in all fields, and it says more about those judging it than those judged. Professionals do hack work all the time, they are never the purists that fans and critics tend to be. Not that hack work alone would be enough for the greatest. So it has to do with whether one needs to decide that 'Proust is greater than Faulkner' (I don't think he is, but not lesser either), or whether one doesn't care about such things. Alexandra said sometning on this thread many years ago about how we 'can have many loves'. Yes, we can. So that sometimes what is called 'greatest genius' may still be just 'our favourite'. 'Our favourite' can also be 'a great genius', but you can never prove that he is 'the greatest genius'. Yes, even if many people say the same thing. The very fact that there is an 'Ashton Contingent' proves this. They are never Balanchine-centric, and they are not obliged to be. My thread on the Nutcracker has been about how this one particular ballet is unique in its popular power, but also (with many contributors) how it may not necessarily be considered the 'greatest' thereby. And, interestingly, not a single person who responded on my thread did say that they thought it was the very greatest. Although fans of SB and Giselle have said at different times that these are the 'greatest ballets'. But it's not the case, because it can be disagreed with. I said SB was my favourite ballet, but I do not claim that it is 'the greatest'. This kind of thing always reminds of when Pauline Kael wrote that she thought 'Intolerance' was the greatest movie ever made. Who needs it?

I myself am Balanchine-centric to the extent that I once was, and saw more of his work than anybody else's, but that changed. I still think it's very amusing and ironic that being exposed to a wider range of thinking from dancers and dance fans here at BT is what broke me of that. But, as I've said so many times, how can it be any different in dance than in the other arts? How can the Mozart Freak definitely be 100% right? Because he is both right and wrong. There's a sense of comfort and security that comes from allying oneself to one school or cult or another. Some pianists swear by late Beethoven, and then then the Mozartians get all condescending to them. So I'd just say I've been deeply moved by Balanchine a few times, Graham a few times, and by music and dance from Asia a few times--and that, ultimately, it all matters equally to me--insofar as 'equality' means anything at all, really just that I can't choose one over the other, they're different. For some kinds of thinking, people want to ally themselves with Picasso, with Rembrandt, with James Joyce, with Wagner, with Mozart, with Beethoven, with Petipa, with Balanchine...

But it's this very board that has proved that you can be 'Balanchine-centric', but that those who are not don't consider this to be a dominant trope, and they just don't pay any attention to it. When people write about Bournonville and when people write about POB, they're not trying to be any numbers of the forms of 'Balanchine-centric' that all have discussed. Balanchine and 'Balanchine-centrism' is a subset of ballet and dance, not the subtext. Neither is Petipa, incidentally.

Fwiw, I haven't use 'View New Content' for 4 years. I started using 'Today's Active Topics' long ago, as it used to work better, with the old software there used to be much more difficulty accessing either, though. I will say that is greatly improved in the new system, but I can't say anything about VNC, because I quit using it so long ago. The older posts for the week preceding and even before are also now much easier to access with TAT than they used to be, when you'd have to wait a long time very often to be able to bring it up.

4mrdncr, that was superlative, and tells us much. All these responses are fantastic, and come from such a wide spectrum of people involved in ballet: balletomanes, dance critics, dancers, sharp thinkers.

I'll say more later, as I've got to run out, but 4mrdncr, I think you have finally made me understand the Grand Pas de Deux: I will never be interested in hearing it as a stand-alone piece of music, but I do now see it in the context of all the Sweets, and the contrast it makes. It could therefore be the case, that although the mood does change considerable and become more serious, it is still kept simpler: A 'big' sound for a Nutcracker pas de deux, full of complex raptures and transports, as we have in Swan Lake and Sleeping Beauty, would not be appropriate here.

Wow. I didn't think anybody could pull that one on me!

I like Angel's T-Shirt too.

Is Nutcracker "the greatest ballet ever"? No. As with "the greatest painting," "the greatest novel," etc., my mind doesn't work in those directions.

But the question needs to be asked because, as I said in the OP, it unquestionably is light-years ahead of all other ballets in terms of popularity and financial exchange value. And we all seem to love it to some degree

I am not persuaded by this--one would never feel compelled to ask if a work in a different media (movie or book or painting) was the greatest based on these criteria--popularity and financial exchange value. I realize the comparison does not run on all fours (so to speak), but nor is it the case that "we all . . . love it to some degree" unless "to some degree" allows for an awful lot of latitude. Of course if someone is posting on a thread on "Nutcracker Chronicles" likely that person DOES love it to some degree. But that is not all balletomanes, not even all American balletomanes.

For myself, I have very much enjoyed some good-to-great performances of Nutcracker (and been bored by middling ones). I usually admire the stagecraft of the few productions I have seen. I can even get carried away by a great performance--for a few minutes anyway. I also danced in it as a child which I found unspeakably thrilling. But even as a child I did not exactly love the ballet or, at least, it was far from my favorite. (Too many children, not enough dancing: that's what I thought when I was child--plus I wasn't crazy about the Christmas theme though I realize that would not be a common reaction; even now, when I am more open to the ballet's charms than I used to be I am not mad for the children--or adults pretending to be children. if I had to choose my favorite choreography for children then it would be Balanchine's Midsummer's Night Dream. Nutcracker--not even close.) I last saw Nutcracker at NYCB about 5 years ago--it had some extraordinary highlights (including a great Sugar Plum Fairy in Ringer), but ... uh ... I did not regret that I would only have to "sit through it" once.

Is it a cultural phenomenon in the United States? Sure: I completely agree. I was vaguely under the impression that it does not play the same role in other countries and cultures and indeed only started playing that role here in the wake of Balanchine's version. And of course "here" means a country whose ballet companies need "moneymakers" and perform Nutcracker in the midst of a larger moneymaking Christmas machine. I am sometimes skeptical that more than a very few people going to see Nutcracker ever experience it as any kind of gateway ballet, leading them to attend other ballets: it's a holiday tradition, which is a different thing. They go back to Nutcracker the next year.

I do think it is a great work and I do like it and admire it. I also attribute its lasting power and even its flexibility to one thing: Tchaikovsky's score. Set the same story to Minkus or even Adam--well, we would not be having this conversation. (Maybe Delibes and we would...) Of course the story inspired Tchaikovsky (who, in turn, inspired Ivanov) so, sure they all get some credit for the template--but really I think Tchaikovsky takes the palm here. This is one of ballet's greatest scores.

There was nothing I was trying to persuade you about, I was trying to get some answers on the Artwork Nutcracker, which is pretty much taken for granted with people at this season in the U.S., as you mention. The kind of answers I wanted to give me some perspective have nevertheless been gleaned by making the question in this form, which I already said was 'awkward'.

one would never feel compelled to ask if a work in a different media (movie or book or painting) was the greatest based on these criteria--popularity and financial exchange value.

Yes, one would, if there were a comparable, virtually ritualistic single work like Nutcracker in opera, music (in whatever form), fiction, or any other art. 'Most popular opera' is not the same in opera as Nutcracker is in ballet. Nutcracker is a 'season', it is a forgone conclusion in almost all American companies, and many European ones. But thanks for answering, as you were responding to what I was asking just like the others, and making interesting remarks. That you said it is a 'great work' is important and you also said the primary reason is 'Tchaikovsky's score'. I agree it's a great score, but not as great IMO as Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty.

I do not agree with you that it is an unreasonable thing to ask the artistic merit of something which is clearly way beyond any other ballet in popularity. No offense, but if you objected to that, you didn't have to answer (which you did quite richly for my purposes).

And what I said about 'we all love it' referred only to BTers and other balletomanes, the 'to some degree' definitely including me quite obviously, since I'm the one who is 'shocking' for not having seen it but twice live and not planning to go back anytime soon.

I am sometimes skeptical that more than a very few people going to see Nutcracker ever experience it as any kind of gateway ballet, leading them to attend other ballets: it's a holiday tradition, which is a different thing. They go back to Nutcracker the next year.

That happens to be the whole point. I know of such people, and it does not occur with any other ballet, any single opera, any symphony, any novel, any piece of classical music, or any other kind of artwork. There are not vast numbers of people who go to see 'Swan Lake' and never any other ballet. In that sense 'Davidsbundlertanze' and 'Swan Lake' and 'Giselle' and 'Theme and Variations' and 'Chaconne' and 'Songs of the Auvergne' and 'Namouna' are all in one of two categories, and the Nutcracker inhabits the only other category BY ITSELF. Therefore it is reasonable to get some sharply critical response (anew) to the work itself. I obviously don't think all that much of it, and I only started the first post by saying that it was 'the greatest' in terms of power of a certain sort. And as a 'moneymaker', it far outstrips SL or SB. This does not make the work the 'greatest work of art', but some may have the impression that it is, and while 'moneymaking' may seem crass, it is also a fact, and something that is worthy of intellectual questioning, as in any other endeavour. Anyway, thanks for telling us your experience with Nutcracker.

The movie "Pal Joey" really doesn't have much to do with the play or with the Pal Joey to Pal Ted - or Dear Friend Ted from ex-pal Joey - letters of John O'Hara that were the play's original basis. San Francisco was a weak substitute for Chicago, and Sinatra was not really about to play the part of a heel - even Broadway audiences in the early forties were uncomfortable with the characters. "Some Came Running" was a harder, better movie for him and closer to being an original thing.

Yes, except that he does come across as a heel. That was always effortless with him, and when he 'isn't quite one', as in 'Young at Heart', that's when it strains credulity a bit, and they give him plenty of cigarettes and bad moods even given that family he's married into. Yes, 'Some Came Running' is always touching despite (or possibly even because) of a certain mawkishness. Shirley Maclaine was at her best in that and in 'The Apartment' IMO.

The Goddard Lieberson Lp of "Pal Joey" did contain lines such as "horizontally speaking, he's at his very best" and "I was reading Schoepenhauer last night - zip - and I think Schoepenhauer was right." - perhaps racier ones weren't. For "Connecticut Yankee" Lorenz Hart supposedly was writing and passing new verses up to Vivien Segal as she was singing them, so there may be more material for "Take Him" and "Terrific Rainbow".

Nice story about Segal and the lyrics. I was thinking of things like 'worship the trousers that cling to him', but I hadn't remembered even 'After one whole quart of brandy', but that's probably on there. I had the LP as a kid, but have since lost it, and it was already old then. I think I remember Sondheim talking critically about Hart's lyrics and is (I believe) well-known to admire Hammerstein more. What I was thinking of in 'Bewitched' that I thought would have annoyed Sondheim, but which I find uncanny is 'I've sinned a lot...I'm mean a lot...but now I'm sweet seven-teen a lot..' That never fails to crack me up. A far cry from 'a lark who is learning to pray', granted but then we've already discussed Sondheim's occasional faux pas as in 'the world was just an address, no better than all right'. Hammerstein at his best with 'You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or seven or eight...to hate all the people you're relatives hate...' Still quite impressive.

I remember my aunt, who worked at a charity where Rita Hayworth would do occasional fund raising, saying that sometime in the seventies Hayworth discovered that she and Glenn Ford were living in the same canyon district, Benedict Canyon perhaps, and Ford had become fascinated with her in a way that made her feel a little uncomfortable.

Well, that would need some more detail, as they'd only known each other for 20 years or so, made 5 movies together, and if he got fascinated, she should hardly have been surprised. And even flattered, you know, esp. since she obviously was at least tough enough to tell him 'well, that was on the screen'. Whatever. It doesn't sound too serious, although a bit overdue; the only thing remarkable from what you report is that the 'fascination' came so late. It was certainly common enough for leading stars to work on their love scenes off the set.

Rita Hayworth's presence fills up the screen and you can see why she became such a huge star and symbol of eroticism around the world.

I can't quite, except in 'Gilda'.

And she proved a fine actress once more in one of her latter parts in "Separate Tables".

That cast is an embarassment of riches. I only saw it about 2 years ago. I think the other performances are more interesting in themselves, as Deborah Kerr's and Wendy Hiller's, Burt Lancaster's and the stunning (whether young or old) Gladys Cooper. Hayworth's performance is an interesting addition, but to me, primarily as it stands out in relief to the other, more naturalistic, actors. She comes across as very precious and artificial (I don't mean this as a criticism, but rather as a chracterization of the style, maybe it needed to be and she wasn't always like this, but there is something about her speech that always slightly irritates me, whereas with Barbara Stanwyck, that funny way of speaking with barely moving the lips and teeth at all I find very effective and natural.)

On the other hand, I am not crazy about her one collaboration with Orson Welles in "The Lady from Shanghai". Somehow, I find it impossible to relate to this film.

Yes, I don't care for this either. I even like his 'The Stranger' better, although Welles said they cut it up too much. Which also happened with other films like 'Touch of Evil'.

She is a very moving actress in my mind, more so if one feels her vulnerability in interviews. This has nothing to do with Marylin's vulnerability, to give an example, but rather something to do with a girl who became a love goddess, perhaps without wanting to be one, and found herself imprisoned by that image and by the reflexion of that image from the men's gaze on the private Rita Hayworth who could not live up to their fantasies.

I don't doubt any of this, I just haven't researched her because she's never captivated me especially (and I like far more vulgar, as is well-known, to the point of seeking them out). One thing I'll add is her strange performance in 'Pal Joey', where she is too vulnerable for that kind of tough-as-nails part. I'm sure all the extremely explicit lyrics of 'Bewitched' are not left in the film, and they're not even all on the original B'way cast album with Vivienne Segal, although Ella sings them in the Rodgers and Hart Songbook. The problem, though, is more that she looks faded and older, not just older. I don't know if Vivienne Segal made any movies, but her performances onstage and esp. in Pal Joey are legendary, and I've heard a number of people say how much they wish she'd been cast here. It's a good movie anyway, though, with Sinatra in one of his best parts (it's easily Sinatra's movie, as is 'Young at Heart', even though Doris Day is excellent in this, and 'Guys and Dolls', in which the others can't sing. You didn't hear his cigarettes that much back then) despite leaving out a number of songs, as usual for film adaptations. As a musical star, she's much better as a dancer when younger, as in 'Cover Girl', which I agree with everybody is very charming, and her dancing very polished and pro.

Is it "off topic"? I don't think so. There's a direct connection to the concept of "greatest ballet ever made." Great works exist in themselves, in the way they are peformed, and in way they are perceived over time by the audience. This is especially true in a multi-layered work like Balanchine's Nutcracker, in which so many elements -- music, story line, choreography, decor, special effects, casting -- have been put into place and then fixed with little possibility of change.

I am not suggesting that we play around much with ballets like Giselle, Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty. But the wonder of Nutcracker is that it CAN be played around with. And it still flourishes. Balanchine showed us this when he drastically redfined the Russian version he knew as a young man. I believe that Morris and others have shown us this too.

All you need is the music -- the story (some variation of what Hoffmann made of it) -- a commitment to the spirit of the piece -- empathy with the emotional yearnings of the audience -- and a bit of genius and luck.

These are all excellent and interesting responses, so I want to clarify somewhat my use of 'Greatest Ballet Ever Made'. It's awkward, but I couldn't think of anything else last night. My mind doesn't work that way either, as bart continues:

Is Nutcracker "the greatest ballet ever"? No. As with "the greatest painting," "the greatest novel," etc., my mind doesn't work in those directions.

But the question needs to be asked because, as I said in the OP, it unquestionably is light-years ahead of all other ballets in terms of popularity and financial exchange value. And we all seem to love it to some degree (I also love 'Miniature Overture', Leigh, but I can see why you wouldn't want to keep hearing it, like 'Greensleeves' in Muzak systems in England, or that was still common in the 80s), but I'm probably asking it because that 'spell' doesn't hit me; I don't feel the need to see it every year or even every few years; I might decide to go to a single other performance of it, but even that would probably do for awhile. I think it's partially because, even though I used to go mostly to NYCB, I did see some 'Swan Lake' and SB productions by other companies, and somehow avoided the Nutcracker because it seemed so weirdly gigantic, almost like Phantom of the Opera, you know, totally populist, a little more than I usually like. So that, by the time BT convinced me that not seeing a live Nutcracker was a glaring omission, I had a different perspective, and was too old to 'fall under its spell' in the same way. Granted, it's very different in a live performance, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

So I just said 'greatest', because it must be at least 100 times more well-known than even 'Swan Lake', which might be second runner-up, not sure (or rather perhaps, 100 times 'most-seen', I think many people know about 'Swan Lake' but haven't seen it; people everywhere have seen Nutcracker). Its flexibility is a very beautiful thing, and this very POWER it has a piece of ballet is unknown elsewhere.

But I am interested to hear the remarks about the ballet, which people are here focussing on, and this

However ... "my favorite Nutcracker now and (I suspect) for quite a while?" Yes. And that's enoug for me.

explains the way the piece is thoroughly integrated into the culture. It's just that bart and others here could also say the same thing for Swan Lake or Giselle or T & V or Concerto Barocco, perhaps, while the general public could only be almost certain to know about Nutcracker. And that popular power makes it in some ways the most amazing ballet ever created, even if not the highest point artistically. And it's something one is familiar with long before one (like me) even decides it's time to finally see it live: As a child, I used to play 4-hand piano reductions of the score of the Nutcracker over and over with a friend (in the old Schirmer edition), and this was marvelous fun ('Miniature Overture' was the most difficult, with all those repeated notes--it's a perfect little piece.) I'm not the purist I used to be, but I'd say the flexibility doesn't quite run (for me) to Ellington's jazz version of the Nutcracker Suite; and it's the ONLY Ellington I don't like. Strange to be 'purist' about the Nutcracker, isn't it? But it just doesn't have anything to do with that laid-back cabaret/jazz sound, I guess.

Thanks, canbelto, yes, only twice in real life. I went about ballet quite backwardly, and never saw the Nutcracker till 2006 after I started with BT. Then in late 2007, I saw it in Los Angeles with LA Ballet. Yes, I agree the NYCB production is a great ballet in many ways.

After I wrote that, I realized I should have mentioned that I have watched a good many dvd's of Nutcracker, RB, the Baryshnikov-Kirkland, and my first intro to ballet was the old McBride-Villella telecast. A few others, I think, but no, it never really interested me, I went in 2006 primarily because of BT. I have, otoh, seen Allegro Brillante, Apollo, Serenade, Liebeslieder, and Concerto Barocco numerous times, although not as many times as many BTers will have. What I mean is that I saw all those performances, in fact, and many other Balanchine, Robbins (and Petipa too) long before I saw my first live Nutcracker. I actually value the balletomanes' here championing it along with the not-so-educated general public, as that is what brought it into my sphere. But you can probably see that when you go about it in the way I did (meaning, as another example, the way I want to see Osipova and Hallberg more than I want even to see anything at NYCB at this point, but for a long time mostly just wanted to see NYCB), it automatically makes finally seeing 'the Nutcracker', after all 'that hard stuff' (including several Davidsbundlertanze) just fall into place as one of many ballets. I like it this way, though, too, and indeed there are many beautiful things in the Balanchine in a live performance, I think we all love the Snowflake Scene and the music to that, even if some of us feel less enthusiasm for some of the rest of it. Well, of the big 19th century pieces, I'd automatically see Swan Lake, SB, or Giselle before I would Nutcracker.

I think it's probably some sort of modernist perspective--the Nutcracker phenomenon is a kind of all-encompassing thing that surrounds people esp. at Xmas, but to me it's exactly like watching Allegro Brillante. But I am fascinated at how hugely viral the piece literally is. No other even comes close, does it? not even Swan Lake, in terms of vast popular appeal.

But ... I will say that the Nutcracker has a sentimental place in my heart. I remember the old Gelsey Kirkland/Baryshnikov film in its PBS telecasts and watching it and from that I think I developed my lifelong love for ballet.

I have to say that, even though I'm not so attached as you to the piece (with your reservations noted), the McBride/Villella telecast probably had the same earliest effect on me, even though that is almost like the forest primeval in my mind at this point.

Cristian, what is BRTN? Is that to do with Ballet Russes? You throw it off so casually I obviously ought to know, but I read as many of the Nutcracker technically-oriented threads as I can, but these, as is well-known, are not few and far-between...

The interlarding of the horrendous 'Black Swan' clips, as if that piece of CHEEZ WHIZ had any statement to make about anything on earth, much less an art form like ballet, clearly demonstrates the total idiocy of the public which is fueling this tired little sideshow. Ringer was gracious, sympathetic, charming, and completely poised (very much what one would imagine from her lovely dancing); I devoutly hope her well-mannered and well-spoken appearance will put an end to this drivel.

agree with bonnette. very cool, jsmu, I don't know if I like the 'interlarding' or the 'total idiocy of the public' best, but this has given me great pleasure.

I'm glad you raised this issue, because I've always felt like the lone ranger when it comes to Nutcracker...I appreciate it in its historical context, for its visual panoply, wonderful music and so on, but it is among my least favorite ballets. I don't find it interesting or engaging, and certainly not great; even as I child, it left me cold. Maybe I'm just a born curmudgeon.

What interests me is that The Nutcracker is clearly the most powerful ballet every written in several senses. Does that mean it is the greatest? Yes, just like the most powerful nation in the world is the greatest viz., the U.S. of A., in practical terms, yes, nothing else comes close, not even Swan Lake, in ballet terms, or England or France or even China yet, in national power terms.

And it is also interesting that balletomanes take it so seriously too. The popular audience comprises people who never go to a single other ballet, that's one thing. Then balletomanes tend to go see it every year. There have been discussions about how the Nutcracker is not everywhere seen as a holiday thing, but the Balanchine is, and maybe previously the old ones were, too.

This is a curious collaboration, because connoisseurs of ballet most likely don't think The Nutcracker is the greatest ballet ever made, but they talk about it, with every detail of minutiae, as if it were. Which is fine as long as you feel it's that important, for whatever reason.

I've seen The Nutcracker a total of twice and it is very enjoyable, but I don't plan to see it again unless it comes up as some social affair to do; I wouldn't seek it out for artistic reasons. It's not an unimportant ballet to me, but neither is it particularly outstanding either. It's on the same level as 'La Bayadere' or 'Don Quixote', but not up there with Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty or much of Balanchine.

I wonder if anybody else doesn't care that much about the Nutcracker as an always de rigueur holiday event. It may be that it finances the rest of ballet to a great extent, and that's reason enough for it, no other ballet does that. But is it this 'cozy' thing that happens for some balletomanes every year? Because to me, it's just another good ballet among a number of full-length one, if I'm being as objective as I can be. It's pretty clear that the appeal has to do with its charm for children and its use in the holidays (even if not everywhere, most people think of it as an Xmas event.) If you're in the business, it's obviously a big deal, but not everybody who likes ballet is in the business, so I wonder if there are others who realize that the Nutcracker is also just something that is propelled by its popularity with families w/children, and may not really be more interesting than a lot of other ballet. I do know it's not necessary to love ballet to not want to see a lot more Nutcrackers, although this is not meant as a criticism of those who do. I just think it's a fine ballet, but not that great.

So what I guess I am asking is, of you balletomanes, which of you think that, overall, the Nutcracker is the single most important ballet every made? or the greatest? or the most worthy of infinite, endless attention? Nobody seems to ask this, but I've also never heard the Nutcracker proclaimed by even a single critic, dancer, artist, or balletomane as 'the greatest ballet ever made'. Not that it has to be, again, to make it all this popular. On the other hand, the 'spell' that seems to come, and this includes Macaulay's 'Nutcracker Chronicles', which is representative of this perennial phenomenon, seems to be something accepted for the most part. But, while I stopped being an NYCB freak and started getting interested in other ballet companies that used to interest me much less, it has never happened that I have been caught by this 'Nutcracker spell', and I imagine there are even some dancers and choreographers who are not always.

I'm also realizing that I would want to go see other dancers in 'Swan Lake' and 'Sleeping Beauty' and many Balanchine and Ashton works, and other things I can't even remember right now, but to go see what somebody's 'Coffee' or 'Arabian' is just doesn't captivate me. But it seems as reliable as tax returns, and that's what's interesting to me about the phenomenon. So I want to know if there really ARE ballet super-fans who think Nutcracker is THE greatest ballet ever made.

I've decided this needs a separate post, so people can keep talking about the controversy in the Macaulay post. I'm repeating my post from there, and placing Bonnette's reply to me in a third post for now. Mods, please rearrange as is appropriate:

My post, which was originally on the Nutcracker Chronicles thread is as follows:

Pamela--this is the most recent story of the bombing I've read, the first one to name a suspect that I've seen. I hesitated to put it here, but noticed that it happened the night following the ceremonies you described in Stockholm, and in each update I read I thought there might be some mention of the Nobel events. But there haven't been. Were they fully concluded the night before? I doubt that this bombing had any effect on the Nobel ceremonies if so (and also don't know if those take place in the city center, tend to doubt it), but was very sorry to hear this, as the workings of these organizations are not predictable, and do happen in the most unexpected locations (I believe old Bin Laden tapes even used to single out Sweden at the time of the beginning of the Iraq War as being one of the nations that hadn't offended them and that 'you don't see us attacking Sweden'. But that was before the 'scandal' of the Danish cartoons, which hurt all sorts of delicate feelings, really just unbelievable some of these extremists. This surprised me, though, as I'm confused on it: I did think it was a Danish matter, not Swedish. Is Mr. Vilks Swedish, and was he also publishing in Denmark? I hadn't tied in Sweden at all, during those ludicrous burnings, etc., a few years ago. I just put this link here as the latest I've read on this story, which I'm following closely:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/world/europe/14suspect.html?hp

This article is more comprehensive, and tells of that frightening aspect of 'luck' in which the attempt was a relative failure, considering that he was heading for that dept. store. I begin to wonder how long the relative luck is going to hold out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/world/europe/14sweden.html?ref=world

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/world/asia/11puppets.html?_r=1&hp

This is one of the most beautiful and moving articles I've ever read about rare artistry. And I do hope they manage to make it to New York with their collection. Just astonishing the dedication and devotion of this couple, but I've put it here for another reason as well, a quote from the article:

I opened this museum because I wanted to encourage this art. I wanted it to become popular again, Mr. Cui said. Instead, people in China no longer learn about the things of our ancestors. Whats popular now is saying O.K., and McDonalds, and ballet and pop songs.

I have to say that this is the first time I have run into artists so rarefied that they have even put 'ballet' in the same category as 'McDonald's' and 'saying O.K'. Not that I've been able to ever be quite that strict, but it shows you how extraordinary this kind of artist is. There was another Japanese example of generations of craftsmanship I saw a video of some months back, I'm going to try to remember it--yes, they were doll-makers, just exquisite, but I can't remember where I saw it. These people don't think of anything else when they get this involved. It makes Christo's little political squabbles to put some temporary 'covering' over a river or sheets through parts of California or Central Park or hot-pink plastic on an island look a bit presumptuous by comparison.

What interests me is that The Nutcracker is clearly the most powerful ballet every written in several senses. Does that mean it is the greatest? Yes, just like the most powerful nation in the world is the greatest viz., the U.S. of A., in practical terms, yes, nothing else comes close, not even Swan Lake, in ballet terms, or England or France or even China yet, in national power terms.

And it is also interesting that balletomanes take it so seriously too. The popular audience comprises people who never go to a single other ballet, that's one thing. Then balletomanes tend to go see it every year. There have been discussions about how the Nutcracker is not everywhere seen as a holiday thing, but the Balanchine is, and maybe previously the old ones were, too.

This is a curious collaboration, because connoisseurs of ballet most likely don't think The Nutcracker is the greatest ballet ever made, but they talk about it, with every detail of minutiae, as if it were. Which is fine as long as you feel it's that important, for whatever reason.

I've seen The Nutcracker a total of twice and it is very enjoyable, but I don't plan to see it again unless it comes up as some social affair to do; I wouldn't seek it out for artistic reasons. It's not an unimportant ballet to me, but neither is it particularly outstanding either. It's on the same level as 'La Bayadere' or 'Don Quixote', but not up there with Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty or much of Balanchine.

I wonder if anybody else doesn't care that much about the Nutcracker as an always de rigueur holiday event. It may be that it finances the rest of ballet to a great extent, and that's reason enough for it, no other ballet does that. But is it this 'cozy' thing that happens for some balletomanes every year? Because to me, it's just another good ballet among a number of full-length one, if I'm being as objective as I can be. It's pretty clear that the appeal has to do with its charm for children and its use in the holidays (even if not everywhere, most people think of it as an Xmas event.) If you're in the business, it's obviously a big deal, but not everybody who likes ballet is in the business, so I wonder if there are others who realize that the Nutcracker is also just something that is propelled by its popularity with families w/children, and may not really be more interesting than a lot of other ballet. I do know it's not necessary to love ballet to not want to see a lot more Nutcrackers, although this is not meant as a criticism of those who do. I just think it's a fine ballet, but not that great.

So what I guess I am asking is, of you balletomanes, which of you think that, overall, the Nutcracker is the single most important ballet every made? or the greatest? or the most worthy of infinite, endless attention? Nobody seems to ask this, but I've also never heard the Nutcracker proclaimed by even a single critic, dancer, artist, or balletomane as 'the greatest ballet ever made'. Not that it has to be, again, to make it all this popular. On the other hand, the 'spell' that seems to come, and this includes Macaulay's 'Nutcracker Chronicles', which is representative of this perennial phenomenon, seems to be something accepted for the most part. But, while I stopped being an NYCB freak and started getting interested in other ballet companies that used to interest me much less, it has never happened that I have been caught by this 'Nutcracker spell', and I imagine there are even some dancers and choreographers who are not always.

I'm also realizing that I would want to go see other dancers in 'Swan Lake' and 'Sleeping Beauty' and many Balanchine and Ashton works, and other things I can't even remember right now, but to go see what somebody's 'Coffee' or 'Arabian' is just doesn't captivate me. But it seems as reliable as tax returns, and that's what's interesting to me about the phenomenon. So I want to know if there really ARE ballet super-fans who think Nutcracker is THE greatest ballet ever made.

Her laughter at the restaurant although charming is not one of the strongest moments of the film, I think it lacks spontaneity unlike her most charming laugh in "Queen Christina" when she sees John Gilbert's carriage caught in the snow.

This is the most disturbing scene, because it's so famous, and yet when you look at it, it can seem almost painful. I tend to agree with you on the 'drunk scene' insofar as I can; as you know, this is my least favourite of the Garbo films, and it's for me a case of the whole really not adding up to the sum of its parts (many of which are indeed scintillating.) But the laughter scene is just upsetting, for one thing it's her own resistance to the stupidity of something that crude anyway, this might evoke mild amusement, but not these uncharacteristic attempts at 'belly laughs'. Oh yes, I really don't care for this scene.

I am going to watch your Mercouri video tonight or tomorrow when there's more time. Yes. Melina was a huge persona, and these are often attracted to others. I don't bring her up that often because it seems people have not thought of her that much in the U.S. since her death, or really as much as she deserved even before her death. She was a true goddess, and I'll add one film that you didn't that I especially like, because she is so shining and beautiful in it: La Legge, or La Loi, and which has its campiest 50s American translation as 'Where the Hot Wind Blows'. What a cast for this episodic film too: Not only Melina, but Gina Lollobridgida, Yves Montand, Pierre Brasseur and Marcello Mastroianni. I like 'Stella' too. I've tried for years to get a copy of 'Phaedra', but never have been able to find it on eBay even. Libraries here don't have it, so I think it may have never been released commercially (I recall there was someone on eBay selling taped copies, but was caught at something fraudulent, and I was one of the buyers, so we were all reimbursed--I've still yet to see it. But I tell you, I have never understood how Anthony Perkins managed to make his way into movies with these voluptuous ladies like Melina and Sophia; at least with Audrey in 'Green Mansions', it's not quite so strange, but he didn't 'find his stride' till 'Psycho', which may not be the kind of way one always wants to find it!

Helene--this Meesenger really is for the birds. The upshot of all this is that my correspondent answered me between 5 and 6 a.m., but I only found it by accident tonight, when I noticed that one of the notes sent 'had been read'. There was a second short accompanying one, and then I sent duplicates of both of these while I was discussing it with you and Alexandra, and the others all said 'not yet read', but I had left all of them unblocked. Also, I did not receive a notification of his response in my email, as I usually do with people (as last night from Alexandra when I was also asking her about this stuff).

the Messenger always said '0' today, well after he had responded, and there was not indication whatsoever of anything new having arrived. I ONLY discovered it because I was still trying to figure out how it worked! Not great.

Oh well, we are living with this system, and have to tinker with it. Once I told someone else to pm me about something, and a mod deleted it for some reason, so I didn't want to write it on the board that someone 'should check their pms', even though people on some of the overly informal blogs do that way too often about checking emails, but it isn't really usually that rude.

Clicking option 3 disables PM for everyone, except Admins and Moderators, who can send PMs regardless of the state of the checkbox.[/indent]

This is primarily what I was asking Helene, thanks for that detailed response. I imagine there are some people who don't want to receive any kind of PM if they have the choice, so that's surely what it is in this case. We'll just leave it there, as it was nothing urgent, but this is rather complicated now technically. Also, the 'Block' being visible for all except mods and admins may be correct or not, considering that when I took a look at the older messages from other posters, I saw nothing of either 'Block' or 'Unblock', and this one I sent was relatively new--and in this one, only the 'as yet unread' showed, whether I clicked 'Block' or 'Unblock'.

I just looked again, just to see if I could figure it out. Some conversations I had with Cristian some months back would either show the 'Block' or not, this would sometimes have to do with whether he or I was the recipient or not. Even further back, a conversation with leonid says 'no longer available, deleted', but I never deleted it, and you can still read it. I also never have liked the user-unfriendliness of 'show/hide' things which 'Block' and 'Turn Notifications off' are: They really ought to say 'HIDDEN' or 'BLOCKED' after you've done it so you don't immediately see UNBLOCK, which can make you think it's Unblocked at first. But alas. I do agree with you that this is a needlessly messy PM system, but you answered the main question, which is that some people probably do block both their PM settings and their BT email.

You just click on Jane's link, get to the webpage and scroll down till you see a clip of 'La Sylphide' on it. You can click that one or the other four pieces are at the top of that one, if you'd rather watch one of those. It's a little wait for loading and you get these 7-8 bright coloured stripes and some old fashioned TV noise before it will come on. But it's not that long.