papeetepatrick

Well, I still don't have that fine eye, and would like to know if there is a video of Guillem doing Aurora. There are other Auroras I don't like, like Viviana Durante, but I could see what I thought of Ms. Guillem as an artist if I saw her Aurora. It's possible I might like some modernist sort of approach, although I can see I have a hard time imagining it. Hello, and let me take this opportunity to welcome you to the board. I see your point, but am I wrong in recalling that there were some at the time of the advent of Farrell who regarded some of her idiosyncrasies – the high, high legs, the unorthodox arms – as unclassical? And now she’s regarded as not only classical but a pivotal ballerina – arguably the ballerina – of the neoclassical era. A belated thanks to Mel for reviving this thread. I don't think I recall that nearly as much emphasis placed on those idiosyncrasies, because for one thing, they have to do with the body itself as much as what the body then does. I knew dancers who didn't care for Farrell, and still do, but my recollection is that, although you can find plenty of discussion of her exaggerations in the pre-Bejart period, and Croce talks about this in 'Farrell and Farrellism', it seems that it was still the whole thing that was mostly being talked about, not separated-off elements such as the suddenly-severe thing Guillem's legs and feet do. In other words, Balanchine's attachment already got the legend going to such a degree that Farrell was not so dissectable and very quickly got an aura in a similar way to Garbo shortly after that early Pabst movie 'Streets of Sorrow' or whatever it was, when she had not yet become 'goddess-like'. So I had a number of dancer friends who told me they found Suzanne 'boring' and 'dull' and 'no personality', all of which I found ridiculous, but it always in those cases about the whole thing, not the physical attributes, most of which were reluctantly granted as existing--favourably, as special gifts. There were, I admit, also times, when I thought critics went to far in their hyperbole, not that Farrell wasn't great--of course I think she is--but that they wrote absurd stuff better left in the 19th century or in Buckingham Palace Machinery publicity. I didn't think they knew how great Farrell was, but that they had heard it and were going to join a 'cult.' Now, Ms. Guillem is a brilliant dancer, but she doesn't have that image in the same sense--although I probably agree with what Peter Martins said toward the end of 'Far from Denmark' that Farrell was 'a great ballerina' and that she was the last of a breed ...and something about the newer dancers are not cultivating this image thing so much any more, that it's much more a matter of work that is also dancing, something like that, you get the gist.

I was in Paris in that period, and they were still fresh from 1968, so that was pretty typical to be talking about people being bourgeois while being it oneself. I had a friend from Venezuela also studying there at the time and he was quite vehement when referring to one girl who lived with her mother on the Ile St. Louis as 'bourgeoise A L'EXTREME!' At Christmas, I went to London where one of my piano teachers lived during part of the year. She said 'I love Paris, but I don't like the French: They are so bourgeois...' She lived alone, except for servants, in four floors of mansion in St. John's Wood. There are many hard-leftist bloggers at this very moment who think ballet is much worse than bourgeois, but virtually fascist, because of the physical perfection being a bit 'unfair', not very equitable.

Wonderful insights, Paul. Thank you. Paul--for what it's worth, I haven't seen Guillem's Aurora, but I did watch the movie with Sizova and the video of 'Cinderella' without knowing what this kind of high extension was--I mean, it's hard for you to imagine this, but I more or less 'hadn't heard of them', as it were. But I noticed one after the other in 'Cinderella'--they stuck out, every one of them--but I didn't notice anything that seemed somewhat unharmonious in Sizova's Aurora, which I watched twice. So you think it was Nureyev who wanted to see these 180 degree extensions all the way through--and drawing attention to themselves as such--which is how it came across to me? I just bring this up because it also occurs to me that one is a very modernist, one might say, kind of dancer, and this dissonance may even be what one ought to want to see more of, and the other--even if the leg 'went way up'--seemed to be to always be in a style that was smooth and, probably, I was attracted to that softness that Sizova brings; whereas I can't get around memories of razor-sharpness in that Guillem, which is okay, since I haven't ever seen anybody I liked as well as Sizova in it anyway, although that's not so many (but again, I'll look up the other pieces.) I'd like to see her Aurora, is it on DVD?

Thanks, Paul! That definitely opens up some new territory for me to explore. The finish you're talking about was certainly in evidence, and I have nothing against cool tones. I obviously need to see some of the others.

I'd like to know more about Ms. Guillem. I've only seen her on the video of Nureyev's 'Cinderella', and this is the only time I've also seen this sort of high extension. This viewing itself has been done about a year ago. I recall writing a pm to Helene about this, because I hadn't ever seen these and wanted to know if Ms. Guillem was well-known for doing this, which Helene confirmed. At the time, I was impressed with seeing something that is obviously common knowledge among balletomanes, but was novel for me. However, I don't care for 'Cinderella' and that's primarily why I am now glad I watched it--there are many other ballets...Looking back at the images that go through the mind, I don't remember anything else about Ms. Guillem except perhaps she reminds me of some of the actresses in Eric Rohmer movies. The question for me, though, is: You see the ease with which she does these high extensions, and she surely knows that there is much criticism of this by people who think it is wrong for this ballet, etc., so she chooses to use them. But is she as capable of doing the less high ones? I don't mean physically in the same sense as those who cannot do the high extensions, or is it something she always does and can she do the less extreme ones not only also, but can she do them as well as other ballerinas? If she cannot, then it means she can do only the highest ones with ease and perfection, and therefore feels unnatural doing them in a more restrained way. I find that, after seeing them done as she did in 'Cinderella' I do not care for them, but then I agree with those who say it is unrealistic to expect that this would not come to be. This extra stretching of one kind of another is always going to be done in all areas. Some things I get used to, other things, like 'Second Life', which I just read a NYT article about, I don't expect to be able to get used to. But I'd like to know if Ms. Guillem always used these very high extensions, and whether the ability to do them easily makes it almost impossible to resist doing.

Thanks, GWTW, I can see little reason why people think the 18th century is all that much more extravagant than other ages. Sometimes there's an ideological, i.e., especially Marxist, reading of these kinds of aristocratic works of the 18th century that I don't see as often applied to other periods. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20111 This is slightly off-topic, unless we can include the Met Museum in this discussion (I looked at their pages and could find no free day, although they have raised their suggested admission yet again.) But I finally got around to reading this after bookmarking it months ago, and it is very fine. I mention the Met, because that's the only museum in NYC I know of having a few beautiful Tintorettos, although the article does mention one from the National Gallery being used in the Prado show. I was most fascinated about the paintings that are never moved from Venice, and would love to spend a week in Venice going to look at the Tintorettos at some part of every day. Also remarkable in the article are Henry James's impressions of the paintings; he was overwhelmed, and there are a wonderful couple of paragraphs in which he describes how Tintoretto dissolves the realism/idealism aporia. Definitely one of the most impressive pieces of art writing I've seen in a long time.

Yes, it's stunningly impressive, and one journalist described her later as having left NYCB 'with great eclat'. While it's actually sad in terms of Balanchine himself being unable to see this as he would later (and as she recounts in 'Elusive Muse'), I'm afraid I'm a little amused at the way she rebuffed her mother... Of course it's true what you say about Balanchine, I was basing some of this on things Maria Tallchief said about some of those areas of activity--I got the idea it was of more symbolic importance than in any way obsessive as uncontrollable libido (with Nureyev's appetites being the extreme of something like that), but others will know more about this than I do.

[David Hallberg had] 'formal ballet training at 13 with Kee Juan Han at the Arizona Ballet School in Phoenix where he studied intensively for four years. In 1999, he was accepted into the Paris Opera Ballet School where he continued his studies under the direction of Claude Bessy, Jacques Namont and Gilbert Meyer." This is from David Hallberg's ABT bio, I didn't see him mentioned in this thread. May be more like Marcelo Gomes as finishing school, but it doesn't say how long he worked there.

Anytime I can get close to a Vermeer I am happy, so does that make it okay that I am also nuts about the Fragonard screens and Tiepolos at the Frick, including the one with the tiny dog on silk dress? We've recently been talking about the 18th century, and people's attitude about how it's 'too pretty' can sometimes get on my nerves. I recall art history classes when all the intense students made sure to repudiate Fragonard, and a professional art historian tried to ridicule my enjoyment of Boucher. Was more tolerant of Chardin, with the dead game (I like Chardin too, and the Met had an amazing special exhibition a few years back.)

Clever you are! and I found all of it... I once heard that Patricia McBride and Jean-Pierre Bonnefous were superb cooks too, used the Pelleprat or Escoffier a good bit, maybe.

Thanks, Mel. Still--must have been really hard to deal with, and probably still is.

http://www.nycballet.com/company/alumni/roster.html I was perusing this and saw that both 'Pat McBride' and 'Patricia McBride' are listed here. It surely must be the same, mustn't it? I've heard Patricia McBride called Pat and Patty a lot, so if it is yet another dancer, it would seem to be a constant irritant. Sorry--I put this in the wrong forum, please move it to NYCB if you like, I don't know how.

That was one of the most incredible things I ever read. Wow. These people make Leona Helmsley's stained-glass windows of the Helmsley real estate on their mausoleum and their dog millionaire look amateurish and modest. Were other musicians or anybody else hearing about Ms. Hatto during the last few years? I have never joined one of the piano discussion groups, although I did sometimes go to a classical music chat when I had aol, but somehow I just didn't hear anything about this. Some of it was pretty funny, especially the Marlene Dietrich insertion. That will often work wonders, as when during the Clinton impeachment hearings, one of the senators compared Marlene Dietrich in 'Witness for the Prosecution' to Monica Lewinsky--and Tom Olliphant couldn't resist pointing it out maliciously. Some of the denials by Barry were worthy of some recent Congressional hearings in which FBI testimony as to what kind of intelligence was said in no uncertain terms, only for there to be a firm denial of the witness having meant the NSA only, etc. Thanks so much, bart! I would have continued on without having found out about these magnificent new recordings of genius!

This reminds me of Casanova, who is perhaps more memorable as a character, persona--but the place you find the best documents are in the Memoirs. You get a feel of the ease at which he was always finding himself in bed with women (including at one point, his daughter); as if it is little more framed or prepared than breathing or just walking into this room or that room. I cared to read only one, but there's something to them. Fellini notably hated Casanova--no children in his life, etc.--so made a movie with Donald Sutherland, which I've never seen, and don't especially want to. If Casanova's life was as original as fame makes it seem, he may not be admirable in many ways, but a movie made by someone who thinks only badly of his hero is the sort of thing that has never interested me. Of Byron, I confess to knowing nothing beyond the usual high school 'Prisoner of Chillon', and it hasn't even occurred to me to look into him.

I thoroughly recommend the reading and study of Jacques Derrida's 'The Ear of the Other'. It is about Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's sense of having too over-developed an ear, but I think he was talking about something other than what it looked like. Fred Astaire's ears might seem objectionable to some people--long and leprechaunish on a face that always looked oldish even when he was younger. Kiri TeKanawa's ears are supernal, With or Without Piercing. I know a Swiss baroness who was famous for her ears, I wasn't the only one that thought they were gnomelike and exquisite, and during her ballet-dancer period her ears looked marvelous onstage. Her name was Clorinda de Stockallper de la Tours. Anybody know that name? Born in a castle in Lausanne. Also a citizen of Lausanne was Audrey Hepburn, whose memorial service I attended in New York in 1993 at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. I told a Swedish economist friend who had the famous chiselled cheekbones and wry humour and atheism all as suggested by the popular stereotypes of the cold silent Swede about going to this, and he said he disliked her 'because she had such big ears.' I had never thought of this before, and I still haven't. But she was a ballet dancer and actress who was said to have had big ears by someone who felt his whole assessment of her might be based on his opinion of her ears. Nevermind that this was one of the great beauties of the 20th century--and even she said her feet were too big and her chest too flat. I don't whether it affected her acting, but this is a real example. Maybe one would notice her ears more in 'Wait Until Dark', in which she was playing a blind girl. Personally, I have been far more distracted by dancers' protruding teeth, pock-marked faces, slack mouths and too much weight put on than I have been by dancers' ears, not once having ever been distracted by any.

Well, I have said it, innumerable times. Yes, there is such a thing. As what body part can't? Breasts can do it, and they can also add to Marilyn Monroe's acting genius, which they did. Ears are like with Garbo, and you will find that people with 'a good ear' often have beautiful ears, but if you don't look at them, it would seem to be less, not more, of an issue. Let's see now, I of course love Suzanne Farrell's ears, and thought of them immediately as inhabiting the area underneath her many tiaras, as in 'La Valse' and 'Vienna Waltzes', and of course I love Alla Sizova's ears, because she's my other favourite ballerina. And men even have clever ears sometimes, Tom Jones used those almost as much as he did anything else he could think of. Barbra Streisand has gorgeous ears, they match her nose perfectly.

I don't think ears are any more often unattractive than any other body parts, certainly don't think that they 'are often ugly appendages.' I even like some peculiar-looking ears, especially those that give off a gnome-like or elfin aura, but I'm afraid I find this most peculiar speculation, as I think ears are essentially beautiful, certainly as beautiful as often as other body parts, and that they are just different from one person to the other. Perhaps they aren't meant to be looked at quite as directly as eyes, etc., etc.,

In my own collection of classical plays, I must include Racine's 'Phedre', 'Athalie', 'Brittanicus', as I agree with the French that Racine is as great as Shakespeare. He does something else.

Agree that these are good. I don't think 'Othello' was a good intro either, which was mine.

Yes, Farrell Fan, I mentioned it in a clump of others above, and I agree with you, it is the most difficult, thorny novel I have ever read. I read all of Proust's Recherches in 2 months, but it took me 3 1/2 years to get through Tristram Shandy, but you feel like you deserved an Honorary Knighthood when it was finally done. NOW--I must make plans to reread it, which should be a great and well-earned pleasure. I cared little for that movie from 2006, the Cock and Bull Story about a film company trying to make the impossible film of Tristram Shandy, but it's always spoken of as being very cinematic. I left out all my favourite female fiction writers, most of whom are American and 20th century: all of Flannery O'Connor's incredible stories, Carson McCullers--all of it, but esp. Reflections in a Golden Eye and Ballad of the Sad Cafe, and Joan Didion--all of it, but The White Album and The Last Thing He Wanted by far the most. Also like Robbe-Grillet quite a lot, and with things moving as they are, these 'nouveaux romans' can probably be called classics by now, even if Saul Bellow denounced them.

Good question. I notice that everyone on your list except Hobbes could be considered a writer of the 18th century. Readers nowadays do tend to flee from the 18th century, it seems. (Although we've recently had a brief discussion of Liaisons Dangereuse on another thread, and Rousseau remains a kind of best seller in the area of women's studies (Julie, etc.). Our age is many things, but an "Age of Reason" it is not. I've read lots of 18th century things, and if you read French, you should read some Crebillon fils, such as 'L'Ecumoire', a hilarious racy fairy tale. Also some Sade if you can stand it--if you really want to understand 18th century France; 'Eugenie Franval' if you can't take the filth. Tristram Shandy is definitely de rigueur, and I need to get to Sterne's Italian journeys essays. Love Defoe for 'Moll Flanders' and Fielding always for Tom Jones. Never have read 'Roxana', this will remind me. And more Pope, I need to take some time for that. Always loved 'Candide' and 'Zadig'. I skimmed through the thread and all named were classics, I believe. It has to do with what we prefer after that's settled (as usual). I don't care for Edith Wharton's prose, it's sort of bitter-sounding in its execution, but do like some of the screen treatments. Consider Faulkner and Hemingway great, esp. 'Absalom! Absalom!' for the former and 'For Whom the Bell Tolls' for the latter. Proust, Joyce, definitely Homer, and the Iliad even more than the Odyssey, it's more muscular. Agree with cubanmiamiboy about 'The Wild Palms' of Faulkner, I've read most of his novels, they are all magnificent. Terrible gaps include Dante, Moby Dick, and Don Quixote. For those of you enamoured of Don Quixote, Martin Amis writes a most amusing essay on how hard it was for him to get through it. Made me not want to read it, and I did try once. Which reminds me: 'Lolita' of Nabokov--indispensable. Amis said 'Lolita is sometimes maybe too good for its own good', which I adored.

Thanks. I do appreciate this and have been wanting to get up to see the new place since I read about it. Really happy to hear it.

The Asia Society and the Frick are both good ones, because Asia Society definitely usually charges. I wonder if there is still no 'pay as you will' day or evening at the Morgan, which is the way it was before the renovation and rebuilding--so almost certainly not now. It was the only one I knew of that never had a free day or evening, even though those unfamiliar with the Met could be easily fooled into thinking they've got to pay full price every day--15 years ago they kept the 'Pay what you wish, but you must pay something' well in view, and now you just have to know.

Not at all off-topic, Bart, and thanks to you and carbro. I definitely need to read the Sheed things, and there was a younger fellow, early fifties I think, who was interviewed a good bit earlier this summer or spring. Can't remember the name, and couldn't find it yet. I first thought it must have been Sheed, but it was another guy who had written perhaps 6 books on musical comedy. Am going to look up the NYReview article and read tomorrow. I see that not buying it as I used to I often don't take the time to study the online contents page well-enough.

Discussing scores with sidwich on the 'Musical Scores' thread, I thought of a musical that really does need to be remade--or made the first time, actually. That is 'Irma la Douce', a most unique musical from Paris by Marguerite Monnot (music) and Alexandre Breffort (lyrics). I've had the old LP since I was a child and it's wonderful, with delicious songs. I think very little of the Shirley MacLaine movie, and even though she's not quite as wonderful a singer as she has often said she is, she's quite good enough to have sung those songs, so I have no idea why they made this mostly silly bit of fluff without the main thing that would have given it real quality. The film of 'Fanny' uses the Harold Rome score only as background music, but I think it works anyway as the romance in Marseilles that it is. Of course, remaking 'Irma la Douce' as a musical is the last thing that's going to happen unless all of these upcoming musical projects are as outrageously successful as some of the big ones have just been.