papeetepatrick

I mentioned this on Cristian's 'Merry Christmas' post the other day, and looked also at some reviews of the company, for which I have great hopes, as I think Los Angeles is continuing to becoming more and more the truly creative city. It doesn't have the quantity of New York, but some of it is of the same highest quality, and it's a place sophisticated enough, and with so much material to use, that it doesn't have the frozen and paralyzed quality that New York sometimes does have--I'm speaking of the more insular nature of the city itself, with Manhattan becoming something of a more digitalized place, too corporate, too electronic and decidedly not electric as it used to be. My discovery of two really good Broadway scores (to my taste only, of course) in the last 30 years, after listening to almost all of the fairly well-known ones by now, is part of this turning of Manhattan into a museum. It's become dull in a lot of ways, and the sense of adventure is nowhere compared to what I find in Los Angeles, although manyt chauvinists will find this appalling (I can hardly blame them if I still felt the same way.) I was late, as it was some trouble getting to UCLA from Hollywood, so arrived at handsome Royce Hall, itself found almost within a maze of buildings on the beautiful UCLA campus, by the time of the mice, so I missed the Party, and I imagine it was lovely, with Colleen Neary and Adam Luders presiding. The mouse costumes aren't that great, not like NYCB or Royal Ballet's morbid-obesity-look mice, so I paid not too much attention, but was already looking at Clara, the beautiful and prodigiously gifted 15-year-old Lilit Hogtanian as Clara. I hate that I missed some of her earlier dancing in particular. Obviously, this is not as a whole sweeping thing the NYCB Nutcracker, although husband-wife team Thordal Christensen and Colleen Neary, also the directors, were thinking about it pretty consciously a lot of the time. Someone pm'd me here last night and pointed out that Miss Hogtanian was attracting a lot of attention, and I've since looked at the program and seen how far she's already come. Therefore, not knowing this beforehand, it was a special pleasure to come upon a young dancer who, from the first moment you saw her, you couldn't keep your eyes off her--and not knowing about her, expecting something good perhaps, but not quite this celestial, gave me some confidence in my eye as an amateur ballet-goer. Maybe this is going to be the new dancer of dreams: the extensions were as high as I've ever seen them, and looked entirely natural to me. This beautiful young girl's every move was a dream. She even reminded me of a more petite Suzanne Farrell in the look of the limbs (although at this age I don't know if this means anything) crossed with Sylvie Guillem--not a bad hybrid. Then there were the Snowflakes, which were charming despite problems of a major order with the snow itself--an audience member afterwards mentioned something of seeing some snow that worked in some Pina Bausch, and so twice there had been, once on the left just before the Snowflake Dancers and then while they were dancing to the right, these desultory falls of 20 or 30 snowflakes, that made you wonder whether there were going to be any more, or whether even the ones that fell had somehow dropped from a bag by accident. The Snowflakes had tutus which I'm sure must be familiar, but had me quite giddy, since they were these giant powder-puff-looking things that I kept trying to find to what they were similar: eggs? decorative pincushions? (this seemed closest). They sort of flounced around and were cute, but I wasn't quite sure why they wanted such slightly comical Snowflakes. There has been some mention in reviews of this 'los angelesized' nutcracker, but I think the snow sprinkles were not intentional surely (I'm sure if Candy Spelling had not used real snow, as she is known to have once or more than once, this wouldn't have happened; much less fake snow). There were other touches I'll mention later, but the show's synopsis in the program has the Christmas Party set in Los Angeles 1912. There may have been a set for this for the Miniature Overture, but I suppose they had Pasadena in mind, as Bunker Hill, now disappeared in its famous mutations in the movies, hasn't ever been quite the place for a long-established bourgeois German family who are gentle with everything. The rich areas of the West Side were untouched in 1912, not even any Pickfair yet. There was some good dancing in Arabian and Russian, with a fantastically gymnastic dancer Sergey Kheylik wowing people with amazing contortions in the air. Spanish was also pleasing, but neither it nor Arabian really made me pay much attention, having seen much better at NYCB last winter. Harlequin and Columbine were Nancy Richer and Peter Snow, and I found them quite sparkling and sprightly. Marie, the Sugar Plum Fairy, was danced Sunday by Melissa Barak, whom I found merely serviceable, but did give me a chance to muse on Suzanne Farrell's Sugar Plum Fairy, which I never saw, but many here have mentioned, including this year. I saw her in many other things, but imagined as the piece was progressing what she must have been like, and especially that she would have had a wry relationship with the celesta's peculiar timbre, which is not the everyday sort of 'being-in-the-world'. None of the costumes were really stunning for those of us used to NYCB, but this performance means far more to me than the one I saw at NYCB last year, primarily because of the perfection of the Flowers. In this, Miss Hogtanian joins her flowers as if to be the Dewdrop herself. And I never thought I'd live to say this--and critics are already lamenting Los Angeles Ballet's 2nd year beginning to wither without live music, without this, without that--but the acoustics at Royce Hall are excellent and the recordings sounded much better than when I've heard them with other companies (including Martha Graham, where the difference in having a live orchestra is like night and day--the day in that case being the live orchestra, in which the Graham Company glories); in fact, the recordings, because of tempi not all made prestississimo were infinitely preferable to the absurd live driving-turbines that Karoui turned the orchestra and dancers into. A year later, I was even more angry at how he had sped up the Waltz than when I first heard it. At the Los Angeles Ballet, with Lilit Hogtanian the most perfect fairy-like being in the world, you saw a real Waltz of the Flowers. And as much as I appreciate Sarah Mearn's artistry, her womanliness is not as perfect for this little slip of a flower as Miss Hogtanian. So this combination of the perfect Clara and the perfect Flowers being able to release their perfume gently with a Waltz played realistically (this Waltz is not a languorous Viennese Waltz, of course, but neither is it supposed to sound as if it had been scored for some dumb animated film), made me look back at what I saw at NYCB last year, and the Waltz had been by far the worst among several stupidly fast tempi: What I consider to have seen last year was 'Waltz of the Sweating Flowers'. And Miss Hogtanian's presence in the Waltz made it by far the most perfect Waltz of the Flowers I've ever seen. The Nutcracker is done by 12-year-old Erik Thordal Christensen, although you would think the most jaded Rodeo Drive shopper was taking over the stage. All leonine wig (I think, his photo in the program is of a pretty short-haired boy) and a floor-length off-white fur coat which is perfectly outrageous, make him sport the most wonderful of the 'local touches'. Other audience members found this touch of camp amusing as well. Clara goes to sleep with a little mouse riding a tricycle around her twice, which was maybe cute,. but seemingly could have been omitted, as Lilit is loveliness enough. Edited to add: I mentioned Ballet Talk to quite a number of people in Los Angeles, including a bus driver who said 'everything went wrong' when he almost made ABT, but did do a national tour of 'Two Gentleman of Verona.' also, due to our Ballet Attire post, I wore Leprechaun-looking shoes bought in Liverpool 20 years ago and worn no more than 10 times, they are so unusual. My travelling companion at the time bought these amazing shoes as well, and his lasted 5 years. Mine are still in perfect shape, so I wore them in honour of Helene and kfw, among others! I wrote this friend whose leprechaun shoes are no more that I wore them to 'bring European quaintness', given the palm trees, etc. This may have gone unnoticed, of course...

I would like this. I just read, just before going there again, a coffee-table book 'Picturing Los Angeles', which someone left downstairs, it's from 2006 and by Jon and Nancy Wilkman. Love reading about my favourite cities and their histories, and this one was especially good. There's a peculiar sense of achievement from actually reading coffee-table books instead of just looking through them, and this one was top-notch. As for Eco, the only fiction I've read is 'The Island of the Day Before', which I found unbearable, don't know why I finished it. Also heard him read at YMHA a few years ago. Can't say that made me a fan either. But there are many people who like this kind of thing. I find it contrived and tedious. I do this only with guidebooks, but quite freely with them, in order to save packing space. Other books I prefer to keep whole unless I give them away or throw them out.

Uh huh. My sentiments exactly, but I'm sure you're at least more tolerant than I am, as this is my least favourite of all Sondheim's shows--I consider it the most overrated Broadway show in history. I'm glad Sondheim got the movie to be exactly as he wished it to be, quite as he keeps being quoted as saying--insofar as I have any empathy for such things (I don't.) I no longer am sorry for any strange casting, omissions of songs, because I think if one of my great favourites, Patti Lupone, cannot make me feel even an ounce of anything but more loathing with 'Nothing's Gonna Harm You', that it deserves all the Golden Globes and Oscars that Hollywood hierarchies, wire-pulling, and whatever else can get them for it. I want it to outdo 'Chicago' in proving what these movie awards ceremonies are all about. Well, this worked (and thanks for the information, glebb, I didn't know about that), although if they wanted to make her sound more amateurish and as if she could not sing (like Glynis Johns and Elizabeth Taylor), they markedly failed, as she is a glory. You can find clips by putting in a few searches--and here you will see that she picked up what they wanted her to understand about the 'character approach' , but failed to learn to be uninterested in the 'mere notes' (she probably just didn't tell them she didn't think she was on hallowed ground). Sally Ann Howes is one of the beautiful and musical stars ever to appear in shows (many do not know that she succeeded Julie Andrews on Broadway in 'My Fair Lady').

Merry Christmas, Cristian! I had the most fabulous one I've ever had in Los Angeles, just got back last night and will report on Los Angeles Ballet's most charming Nutcracker, that had, among other things, Adam Luders and Colleen Neary as the Stahlbaums. The Clara/Dew-Drop--Lilit Hogtanian--was simply exquisite, but I'll get the program out in a few days and go into some detail. As for high extensions, Miss Hogtanian has them looking better than anyone I've ever seen perhaps, because her limbs seem literally made for them, rather than just 'being able to do them'--I guess I've become a total convert when they can look like this. She's 15 and just breathtaking. Just adding to Richard's remark--I think that if you do search, there's a long thread during the last year or at least I'm pretty sure it's in 2006, about what would have happened if Balanchine had become the head ot the ballet in Paris. Since it's all hindsight, most seemed to wish to think, or to actually, think that this would have been tragic. I'm glad it's been brought up again, because while I really never was terribly interested in this sort of speculation, it does become more interesting when you begin to think that the result would have been much different, but equally elegant, if not as much fabulous exploiting of glorious American raw material. But then the ponderous phrases are cherished such as 'It is impossible to imagine this ballet company anywhere but in New York.' That sort of thing is okay if you're into all aspects of the 'quotes of legends', but it really all boils down to that it simply wasn't possible anyplace other than New York, even if for no other reason than because it did happen here. That's why the subject doesn't interest me at all, since it's impossible not to want to see what really did happen as what was the best possible outcome, since that outcome was extraordinary. But Balanchine would also have done wonders in Paris, although it might not have seemed as voluiptuous in an old country, I don't know. In any case, if this sort of speculation interests you, I do think there's a long piece of it somewhere in here.

How extraordinary. I didn't know about that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/arts/mus...ckhausen-1.html I am simply dumbstruck that I missed this due to various activity last week. This was one of the great composers of the 20th century, and while not as 'lovable' perhaps as the recent great performer deaths in classical music--Rostropovich, Sills, Pavarotti--was more important in the musical-adventurer domain. Boulez, who became extremely jealous of him during his ascent into great fame, nevertheless always spoke of him as having been greatly influential on him (although Boulez is a few years older). I've liked some of the piano music, the 'Klavierstucke--I-IV, and orchestral music a great deal, and remember a rehearsal of 'Jubilee' at the New York Philharmonic in about 1981, which was marvelous. He was eccentric, and made that over-the-top comment about the 'great work of art' that 9/11 was, but if he hadn't, someone else would. It was at least less stupid, because he would have meant it, than Jonathan Franzen's pronouncements about the 'terrible beauty'. I don't see this elsewhere here on the board, but if it is, it can be conjoined. I found about his death from, of all places, the LA Times entertainment calendar.

Helene--do you know how these cities are chosen? It seems odd that most of them are small cities. I was just thinking how much fun it would have been to see the SFB one in particular at a movie house on Saturday and the LABallet one live on Sunday, which I will. It sounds cryptic to me, but also that even though more people would see these things in New York even with NYCB Nutcracker, and other big cities, maybe there are problems of scheduling that make them have to show them where they can be shown. I wouldn't mind seeing NBoC either, but would choose SFB among those showing theirs if I were in Winnipeg. I've gotten less curmudgeonly in the last several years and thoroughly enjoy Christmas for some reason, so could definitely tolerate at least 2 Nutcrackers in one season.

I can respect these thoughts about wanting to dress for the 'Nutcracker' children, but I think it's personal and don't feel it in any way myself; it's a good way of feeling like you pay homage to the performers if that's a way you want to do it. I'm going to see the Los Angeles Ballet's 'Nutcracker' at Royce hall next week, and don't plan to give what I wear any special attention in terms of what's on stage--the weather will have more to do with it than anything else. Nor did I at last year's NYCB 'Nutcracker', where it was freezing in the theater. If you dress up, it's still because that's what makes you feel comfortable. Since I pay a lot of attention to the way I dress every day anyway, I feel somewhat dressed up even if it would be technically casual to someone else; I'm not concerned with what they think of it, and don't expect them to be concerned with what I think about them. The performers simply don't care how the audience is dressed, just so long as the front seats have a reasonable number of formally dressed types. I do think 'physical comfort' to the point of wearing sweats is dreadful. Equally important is not wearing heavy perfumes and colognes to annoy nearby audience members. Also taking baths, which does not always happen in the 4th Ring. I do agree with those who talk about differences in place and part of theater in which you're sitting. That's the only place I'd make a difference and with my own attire as well. Sitting in the important expensive seats or at a gala or opening, one ought to dress up in the traditional sense. I see nothing wrong with jeans if they're paired with a jacket and a dress shirt, with or without tie, in the lesser seats. Sneakers unless high-style are out unless you're in the cheap seats, and there it doesn't matter whether I dislike dirty tennis shoes, because people are going to wear them--at the Metropolitan Opera House here, people wear anything, and I often find it repellent. If I were to go to the Royal Ballet in London, or the Paris Opera Ballet in Paris I would probably wear a suit, but were I to see either of these in the U.S., I wouldn't see it the same way, unless in the best seats or at one of the festive performances. (If I went to a performance of Wagner at Bayreuth, I would dress up no matter where I sat, but wouldn't go so far as to buy new clothes for it, because nobody is going to care unless you know people; in that case, it's social and you go and pay through the nose if you don't want to be out of place). It has a lot to do with pride and confidence, so that just so you're not wearing anything too flashy and that's very clean, you're usually all right unless you're involved in it in a social way, sit in the important seats, or are at a gala. In the 4th Ring at NYCB, I've sat next to perfectly gross people, yet some of these were 'dressed up', and it had not helped. But I don't think it's of any importance, at least in the U.S., to try to dress way, way up as in the 19th century, unless the occasion is set aside from others as at an opening or the elite atmosphere is built into everything already, as at Bayreuth. For anything at places like City Center, or any modern dance spaces, it doesn't matter what you wear, you'd match the singular unattractiveness of the place by dressing down, I would think, and that's what people usually do--I've even seen well-known choreographers at performances of other choreographers, and they were even wearing the dirty sneakers.

A biography is supposed to be journalism, not primarily concerned with matters of what is ennobling or degrading. Otherwise, you just need a 'Nureyev's Time as a Ballet Worker'. And, while this book doesn't interest me because I am tired of hearing about Nureyev's life for 35 years or more, a biography does place, if it is at all capable of objectivity, all the elements out there. Art does not necessarily ennoble an artist anyway (or its ennobling doesn't cancel out the rest of it, as in the case of Picasso I pointed out much earlier, nor does it in the case of Marilyn and Elvis). The artist allows the art to be the ennobled, and he is partially ennobled by it as well, but it is not exclusively his production, as it emerges from specific times and places and people milieux that the artist was dependent on, he had not invented those ideal conditions himself. He is the custodian of the art, and as such, gets most of the credit and deservedly so. Even so, there was much that was admirable about Nureyev the man, and if people don't want to know about his sex life, they don't want to know about a major part of who he was, because this was a sexual creature among other things. I don't want a whole book about her, but I liked reading about how she went to a country near India and spoke out for the prevention of drunkenness in Indian elephants in an AP article. Is there a dearth of material about Nureyev? I think, somehow, that there isn't, and that that's why I'd rather stick with some videos of the dancing. But I think a lot of people want to read about this artist-celebrity's life in as much detail as possible, not least at all of which is that Ballet Celebrity is nonexistent by now, there is no such thing, and in the last half of the 20th century, even though there were a few ballet celebs, none was as flamboyant as Nureyev. His life cannot even be understood at all without enormous emphasis on his celebrity, so that in that way I don't think it is comparable to Marilyn and Elvis, because there have always been Movie Star Celebs and Rock Singer celebs, and there still are. They stand out from these, because they captured the public's interest, and they are both far more famous in terms of number than is even Nureyev.

Thanks, dirac, you will love it. But it is an excusable admission, actually--for a very weird reason: People just don't talk about it that much. I thought for a moment maybe I just had horrible taste getting so totally bowled over, but the old review did hearten me; at least some had felt the same way. It's really slightly miraculous, this film. Also have listened to the old 'Tree Grows in Brooklyn' original cast album, with main attraction Shirley Booth, even though she's in a supporting role. I'll put up the NYTimes review of the 2005 Encores! production which explains what some of the problems were--but the score, by Arthur Schwartz and Dorothy Fields, is top-notch, and I regret that I didn't know about that production. But Shirley Booth's 'He's Got Refinement' is just stupendous and totally Brooklyn. Yes, here is the 2005 review, which has good history: http://theater2.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/the...ews/12enco.html And thanks, sidwich, for telling me about the Sally Ann Howes/George Lee Andrews clips from 'A Little Night Music'. I can't link to them here, but 'You Should Meet My Wife' and 'Send in the Clowns' are both definitely worth hunting up. Ms. Howes is exactly right for Desiree to my taste, a true full-blooming rose of a cocotte as she is costumed and groomed here, and one hears it sung beautifully; I prefer it to any other version of the song I've heard. I'm not a huge fan of the show, but 'You Should Meet My Wife' is also a wonderful song, I've got to admit, despite having certain idiosyncrasies that I find irritating.

I spoke to someone else this morning about that, as I'd begun to realize that they were making Gladys Cooper up to look older than she was. Strangely, after I realized that Sibyl would be in her 30s, Kerr still had managed to seem about 28 in the role at most. You must see it. It's literally mind-boggling to go from Gladys Cooper to Rita Hayworth to Wendy Hiller to David Niven, and even Rod Taylor and Cathleen Nesbitt are not undistinguished. I think what I have been so nagging about and probing for myself is that Kerr is one of very few Top Hollywood Stars who was not also a Hollywood character--not even as much as someone like Audrey Hepburn, who wouldn't live there except when working. That would be the only thing that would make her different from Bette Davis, whom you brought as also having a great range (which she certainly does), who was both eccentric character and great actress. And what you bring up about Michelle Pfeiffer is interesting: She is not quite able to give up her vanity, and it does have something to do with her. Pfeiffer a fine actress, but just short of profound. Then I think the other end of the Hollywood spectrum is those whose major interest for me is their Hollywood Character--Lana Turner, Joan Crawford--who have a few fine performances but it's their personas that are in the end what make them myths, scandalous behaviour, etc. I think both types extremely important in the whole sweep of something so truly earth-shaking culturally as Hollywood has been, though. But Kerr doesn't have to force herself NOT to pay attention to herself, it comes automatic. It seems a little less obvious with male actors, but possibly Erroll Flynn and Valentino and of course James Dean, to some degree Robert Mitchum, but he wasn't going to let anything make him 'go up', offstage or on. Definitely appreciate recommendations, which I wouldn't have known about. Michael Redgrave's performances are great treasures, and he is one of the great things about 'The Importance of Being Earnest', although nobody was going to interrupt Edith Evans fantastic behaviour.

dirac--somehow I'd never seen 'Separate Tables', and just watched it. It's not quite as perfect as 'All About Eve', but is like it in that it has that stellar-casting phenomenon that you almost never can find--with unexpected combinations and presences of distinctly different kinds of actors. But afterwards, what made me add to this thread was the year, 1958--while watching it I thought it surely could be not past 1951, even with Gladys Cooper looking as beautiful an aristocrat onscreen but perhaps even older than in 'My Fair Lady', which doesn't arrive till 1964; and the matter of Deborah Kerr's range: It is simply incredible that she managed to pull off this young troubled girl (meant to be no more than 24, surely)and 'Bonjour Tristesse' as the older woman in what is often thought of as one of Jean Seberg's few important films--in the same year and at the age of 37. And bear in mind this is 5 years after her sexy turn as Karen Holmes in 'From Here to Eternity'. I'm hard-pressed to think of other examples like this that actually worked--with that fascinating intertextuality of Burt Lancaster as handsome as ever, yet never exchanging but one bit of dialogue early on with Kerr. Her versatility is much like a pianist who can play Bach, Chopin, Boulez, Webern, Beethoven, Schumann, Mozart and Debussy equally well--maybe a bit like what Maurizio Pollini is still capable of doing.

This is the way I feel about 'Diamonds' too, and I think Phaedra392's comment is perfect. It's all about aristocracy, the stateliness and the rigid kind of perfection, among other things. But perhaps also this is a 'This is What Ballet Is' ballet. I don't find anything about it boring, and think the music is sublime. Even though it is Tchaikovsky (and needs to be to aspire to some kind of ballet Olympus), it reminds me of such things as Bach's 'Well-Tempered Klavier', one of those concert evenings when you hear them all at once. I didn't really notice Phaedra's points about the details even though I read them before watching; my impression was that Ms. Letestu has little to do with this 'queen', as Phaedra describes the original Farrell role. with which I am very familiar. Too lightweight, and toward the end, there is even a sense of mediocrity to the dancing, which I hadn't noticed earlier--needed an energy of a vertical sort. I prefer this to all of the big-ballerina-role Romantic ballets except 'The Sleeping Beauty', infinitely more than things like 'Giselle' , although that just demonstrates our various taste differences--it does surprise me how few people do like 'Diamonds' though. And it should seem possible that dancers will start to want to begin to ripen towards 'Diamonds' as they have been doing for decades with Odette and Aurora and Giselle. Ms. Letestu doesn't have any of Farrell's nobility, but it was good to see it done by another company, because it's fully in the public domain now. I'm convinced other ballerinas can eventually do it as well as Farrell--in fact, they should aspire to go beyond it, whether or not they can--if they want to as much as they want to be great Odette/Odiles. I got the impression Ms. Letestu got tired out by the rigour of the role, that she was relieved when it was finally over. But I hadn't cared for her presence in this even earlier on, when she danced very well. Tempo too slow in this one. Anyway, after going through this once, I realize as I did when seeing this live, there is no favourite 'Jewel' for me, except for the music. They're all indispensible.

Continuing on with one Jewel at a time, so that after each I can go back and see all the comments, seeing it now after it's become passe, at least as a hot topic (like a movie hitting the drive-ins after doing the metropolitan cinemas, then the small town theaters, decades ago.) I can see what nysusan and carbro meant about the 'soft' look, but I think it applies more to Gillot (especially) and also Dupont, somewhat, but not at all to Carbone, who makes this performance work even with all that soft look. That 'soft movement' goes against the angular, clipped sound of the music and so these women, especially the 'tall one', Ms. Gillot, seem very creamy-voluptuous, a very French thing to find no matter what domain, but M. Carbone is fabulous. I kept looking for traces of McBride type sparkle in the women, but he's the one who has it--he's mercurial. As a counterpoint to his sparkle, the women are satisfying to me anyway, even though they're apparently wrong. I thought it interesting to see it performed this way, and I liked it more than what I saw at NYCB in 2004, definitely the set is so much more tasteful. I watched some more of 'Emeralds' again, and now I do understand the meaning of 'port de bras'. This is what I saw the most extreme version of softness in when others and I were recently discussing South Indian dance. But I was finally really looking at the arms, and Osta was sublime this way. I love POB, and imagine that they are probably, all things considered, my favourite of all companies, if I were to see them in person. Anyway, I'll see Diana Vishneva do 'Rubies' with the Kirov in April or May, like many others here, and i imagine that will be more 'Balanchinian'. But the French do 'Emeralds' better than NYCB to my perception, although I didn't see Violette Verdy, and anyway she's French too. Faure is more 'purely French' than either Debussy or Ravel (who can be also, but also can seem a bit more explicitly 'Parisian'), and I've noticed the difference in French orchestral performance of Faure, which is always able to resist the attempt to break out of the introspective and richly meditative nature of Ravels' 'cher Maitre'; they know how not to rush through it. Anyway, except for Robert Tewsley, this POB 'Emeralds' I very much prefer to the two NYCB ones I've seen, the DIA and the live 2004 performance. And I think M. Carbone is really great in this very youthful kind of way.

http://www.nybooks.com/authors/mailer Nice Robert Silvers couple of paragraphs and links to reviews of Mailer books and reviews by Mailer himself, including the first issue: He reviewed McCarthy's 'The Group', and she also reviews Burroughs in that issue. I want to get to these shortly.

How can Casares be wasted? Because it's a supporting role done by a great Comedie Francaise actress? Martita Hunt, Wendy Hiller, Edith Evans and Dame May Whitty have done them too. I think any time you see someone of that calibre of talent it's worth it, especially if the film is of such high quality (I didn't find the child actor irritating either, but I'll look more closely next time). 'Wastings' to me usually mean someone excellent but in a lead role in a dreadful film, like Deneuve in 'April Fools' or Laurence Olivier in 'Bunny Lake is Missing' or Faye Dunaway in 'Eyes of Laura Mars.' And all the big names in 'The Pledge' were wasted in the most unceremonious way--but I would wager it was their choice and therefore their fault, probably a lot of interconnected professional networks among the personnel which produced what I thought to be a dreadful picture. Unless you meant that you didn't think she was good in the part. I might even say the Lunts were wasted in 'The Guardsman', which is a silly period piece, but they bring it to life. No offense, of course, just curious. I thought they were all amazing in 'Les Enfants'.

I totally agree--one of the most glorious and beautiful films ever made. I put it in my top 3 of all-time favourites.

Not necessarily. It's opened up enough by having more and more regional and small productions of real ballet. Like theater, ballet will be more 'opened up for the masses' by multiplying itself in its own form, rather than vaporizing into film, where most of its physicality is lost (even the TV broadcasts, however depleted, are at least of the real thing.) It's partly the responsibility of the 'masses': If they want to 'open up ballet for themselves', the drive or train ride is not usually going to be too far by now. As it is, there is enough ballet on film already, with Czinner's 'Romeo and Juliet' and numerous others, as well as all the DVDs of hundreds of ballets for people who are really interested in ballet to immerse themselves in. In any case, you will not open it up if out comes this big bloated thing that wants more to be 'innovative' and 'populist' more than it wants to just be 'ballet'. You might accidentally get one or two successful things, but we'll just have to see if anybody wants to do it. I am not worried about that personally, as that's what is a part of many special things, but only the most VIP seats still hypnotize their patrons into wearing something other than any knockabout clothing. People used to dress up to take a plane flight. If they decided to start dressing up to go to the ballet again, I wouldn't object. Ballet is not a 'mass form', and its essence wouldn't survive attempts to make it one. The 'masses' already have 'Les Miserables' and 'Phantom of the Opera'; I hardly see that it's anyone's duty to make 'Sleeping Beauty's available at the movie house, when even people who won't or can't drive to a regional or metropolitan ballet performance can slide the POB Jewels into the DVD on their computer and get cultured right in their cubicles. Yes, I can see it as being possible only under those circumstances, but that still wouldn't be Blockbuster or opening it up to the masses. It would be like Bergman's Die Zauberflote, and this kind of thing should be expected to be the very occasional exception. I don't see most Hollywood filmmakers likely to do this, although actors like Joanne Woodward have taken interest in ballet--but even if they are picture people, this doesn't mean that their interest in ballet would make them want to put it onscreen. If they did, though, they'd be some of the ones with the connections, I'd think. You see, if you don't want to see 'ballet dressed up in film glitz', you wouldn't 'open it to the masses', because the current taste of the 'masses' is always anything 'dressed up in glitz' (and themselves dressed down.)

I'm remarkably au courant as always--in this case about a year and a half after everyone else-- so finally started watching this video tonight, just watching 'Emeralds' thus far. I prefer it for the music, which is sublime, and like this better than NYCB version with Merrill Ashley and Daniel Duell. Then read the whole thread, I usually love 'Emeralds' most too. Someone stands out in it sometimes, as Osto and Ganio here, Robert Tewsley was even more outstanding at NYCB live in 2004 when I saw it there. I wasn't bothered with the smiles--French smiles are different and a bit introverted anyway. Also like the women's costumes a great deal as others have noted. But I see 'Emeralds' as a very special, almost religious homage to Faure by Balanchine, and that's why it's so moving. I'm not going to vote in the poll, though, because I love 'Emeralds' most for the music and how Balanchine respected it in all its gentleness, not necessarily do I prefer it in all ways to 'Rubies' and 'Diamonds.'

I don't know if it worked as subversion: I'm afraid the perfect elegance of Delphine Seyrig convinced me of the importance of 'leg o' lamb' every time she said anything about it, no matter how shallow and against Bunuel's thrust--I think she could convince me of anything. Bunuel needed a less intense and much plainer actress (although she would still need to look rich and even fatuous) than Ms. Seyrig (who can't do fatuous no matter what--maybe she can't convince me of that), all of whose work I admire without reservation--even when she worked for Allen Ginsburg. And I think she was more perfect for Bunuel (instead of just for me) as the prostitute at the end of 'The Milky Way.' And for Truffaut's 'Stolen Kisses', she was, as Jean-Pierre Leaud describes her 'une femme superbe.' Some think that's Truffaut's best film, but there's also 'Jules et Jim'. I also think 'Rififi' of Jules Dassin is great--pretty rough noir stuff though, and all about tough guys not behaving very nicely in a number of ways. Not as great as Orson Welles's 'Touch of Evil' as noir masterpiece, but definitely exemplary.

I love Andre Techine, especially 'Wild Reeds', 'Alice et Martin' (has Juliette Binoche), 'Les Egarements' (with Emanuelle Beart), and most of all 'Les Temps Qui Changent', with Gerard Depardieu and Catherine Deneuve. Also many other Deneuve films, including 'Pola X' of Carax, 'Place Vendome', 'Ma Saison Preferee', 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses' (2003 French miniseries), and earlier 'Belle du Jour'. Other French masterpieces are by Resnais, 'Hiroshima Mon Amour', 'L'Annee Derniere a Marienbad' (with Alain Robbe-Grillet) and 'Pas Sur la Bouche' (brilliant French musical 2003, but not easy to find.) Also 'La Dolce Vita' and '8 1/2' of Fellini, Kaige Chen's 'Farewell, My Concubine' about Peking Opera, and the French-Vietnamese 'Scent of Green Papaya'. Satyajit Ray's 'Apu Trilogy' is wonderful. And there are also lots of Bergman and Antonioni threads you can look at here--you don't want to miss these either. There's also Almodovar still working unusual wonders in Spanish, and some early directors like Fritz Lang and Pabst and Eisenstein which are basic for the silent period and just later.

From an email I just received from one of my best friends and book collaborator/publisher/painter Christian Pellet, who lives in Lausanne. He was responding to something I wrote when exploring ideas for our current project, in which I'd found an image of Baryshnikov in New York last week that I knew I'd include, as one of his residences here (whether or not he still lives in it) does have a certain majestic presence to it that surprised and slightly hypnotized me. (I included that only because I wouldn't have gotten the response about Bejart otherwise--I had no idea Christian was so aware of him): "Baryshnikov! Strange that you would mention him so intensely... Maurice Béjart died yesterday in Lausanne, and although I have seen his choreography only once (on New Years' 2005 in Lausanne), one also feels here the aura of this superb artist. I saw him a few times in the streets of Lausanne, where he settled in 1987, and created the Ballet Béjart Lausanne, and also a school in 1992. I know people who worked with him (mostly photographers) who described him as extremely demanding (the price of his "perfection"). But I really felt in the past two days, that an important creator has left the scene. Many people broke in tears when theys heard the news of his death."

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?_r=...amp;oref=slogin Well, I never had seen 'Call Me Madam', so it seems I'm getting to most of the things I like best--very recently, exception of the score for 'House of Flowers'. I agree with everything this NYTimes reviewer wrote about Ethel and this movie, given that I couldn't have seen the stage version myself. I can't think of a screen musical I've ever enjoyed more than this, it's hilarious, not least of which it seems like Ethel Merman and Addison DeWitt for awhile, and then you think this surely is like 'Giorgio Tozze is the singing voice of Emile de Becque', but no! That really is the Voice of Addison DeWitt! and it sounds great! And Donald O'Connor and Vera-Ellen are fabulous, 'Something to Dance About' is amazing. This NYTimes review is perhaps the most enthusiastic rave I've ever seen for a performer, and I have to say that, even with 'Singin' in the Rain' and 'the Band Wagon', which were made for the screen, I didn't enjoy them quite as much as this one. But an adaptation possibly surpassing the original version? I don't know if I've ever heard that said before. Ethel's singing is unbelievably uncanny here--and in the review you find something I've never heard a single time before: She's said to be even better in the movie than she had been onstage. This must surely be unique in all annals of anything American musical comedy-wise. The opening 'Hostess with the Mostess' is so infectious you are almost dumbstruck when she starts singing about 'my White House clee-en-tele..' The sheer joy she clearly has in doing this number is yours at once, and somehow this electricity and energy lights up the film all the way to the end. Sidwich? dirac? anyone?

There are bound to be Bollywood people who'd want to do it this way, everybody's in touch with the various ironies by now. It doesn't sound terribly gripping to me no matter how it would be done. But I'd imagine that the more worldly Bollywood producers would want to see it as a Western thing more than an Indian 'version', since Asians are doing more Western 'collecting' now; it used to be more the other way around. Yes, the Indians to dance a great Swan Lake would never be artistically optimum--in the near future at least. It would need to be Indians, as Mel suggested, who were in love with the Western ballet as in the indie-type thing with the angel-money (if they're Bollywood movie moguls, they wouldn't have to be like in 'The Music Room', with all that aristocratic money spent for one last performance--nor would they know how to be), because it's the same as with Bharata Natyam: I had an American friend who worked on it for many years, studied it some in India, and it always came across as lesser than, say, Yamina Krishnamurt, Viti Prakesh (who is the best I've seen, it really didn't seem like there was anything that weighed anything on stage, it was so subtle and delicate, but assured), or even Ritha Devi. This American dancer always added a hard sharpness to the Indian movements no matter what. These differences do go away in time, but I don't think we're to that point yet--and at that point everything might be more homogenized, not necessarily more versatile experts in all languages. The Indian production wouldn't have to be pure Bollywood, and could combine Hollywood and Bollywood, I suppose, but I personally am just throwing out thoughts; I'd even rather just see a telecast of the stage version of most of these, and don't want to see any of these done as big movies. Although Mel's mix for 'La Bayadere' does sound like the one viable option and that could be really new-combining Old European with New Indian like one of the Fusion Cuisines, even though it begins to seem like we should have Japanese 'Madame Butterflys' and Egyptian 'Aidas'.

Interesting way to express it, I have found that I am energized by an evening at the ballet, and start walking with echoes and ghosts of what I've just seen for awhile, although I try to tone this down so as not to look like a bumpkin walking across Lincoln Center Plaza...but no attempts to do pirouettes and other very specific things, because there's no satisfaction in knowing how poor they would be. It's more of an attitude that one gets....You can just think about ballet and the music that accompanies with and have this inform some of your movements--mostly about bringing inner space alive: This is the way non-dancers might think of ballet for themselves if they're happy with the bodies they have. If not, then they might as well go ahead and try the pirouettes or demonstrate one of the cygnets, as a too-buxom friend (at least for a cygnet) did for me and a few others in a kitchen once...