papeetepatrick

Isn't that what stunt doubles are for? Since we can call women 'actors' now, I want to see Angie Dickinson as Pepper again, no matter how many stunt doubles they need to get those tiny running steps in white pantsuits with purple seams in ditches right. Her fistfight difficulty (always solved by Earl Holliman's miraculous reappearance) will be hard to get a perfect double for too. And I want it in a big movie house, not some crummy TV reprise.

Philip Glass is a kind of Pop that choreographers have frequently been attracted to. You have to either have a taste for it, which a fair number do, or at least be able to stand it. I saw 'Koyaanisqatsi' too, it's inevitable that this sort of thing would have emerged fully during the Reagan years, whether Glass or someone else.

I can't speak for other productions (including the one I saw in LA, of which I read no reviews), but that year, either 2002 or 3, was pretty desertlike in terms of musicals to open on Broadway, even though I find them all to be by now literally of almost no interest compared to what else is available. But at least this year, there is already the interesting-sounding revival of 'company' and Kristen Chenoweth in 'the Apple Tree' plus a couple of other things (whose titles escape me at the moment) that have sounded a little more bold and less bland than usual, even if nothing has really stimulated me yet. I do think your questions are good about why critics write certain kinds of reviews for what might seem obviously mediocre works. In film, I have often thought they write to flatter certain picture people for personal reasons, but it's never quite possible to pin it down. There's a big stretch into getting into those positions, and part of this may mean that your perceptions change almost as part of the job description, even though you might never be aware of this very much. If some higher-up is insisting that you do some of this is probably not going to be all that explicit about it, you have just have to know how to be reasonably politic about it. But there have been plenty of years in the last 3 decades when it was nearly impossible to find a single musical worth nominating for a Tony. Things like that.

Wow, you have no idea how far out on a limb you've just gone, comparing Swan Lake to Swan Lake.NYPL's Dance Collection may have a video of Martin's SL available for viewing. It, too, was televised. I had edited my wrong 'SW' to read 'SL'. You mean really, though? I thought all sorts of people here had already said they hated Mackenzie's, but some hated Martins's even more. Will they do Martins's 'Swan Lake' in the spring? I'll go then if they do. I don't really want to see them except live. In the meantime, do his SB an SL bring in good audiences, better than the ones I've been seeing at other things (even Nutcracker)?

Yes, and I am glad they're making it. I also think that his SB and SL will be seen to have been important things to do at some point. Unfortunately, I've seen neither, and that will be my next NYCB project. I wish I'd gotten to the SB last week, but no time. This is an area in which he may have been very wise. They could always be revised too, couldn't they? I've heard a lot of complaints about them, but I don't care, can't be much worse than that Mackenzie thing ABT televised. I definitely think NYCB needs every single one of these ballets in the repertory, and Nutcracker and Coppelia and Midsummer Night's Dream are the same sort of thing, as Helene pointed out. Nothing distasteful in this, and there is simply no way to ignore that the theater is almost never full anymore. One 'Jewels' I saw at a Sat. matinee in 2004, other than that, I've seen plenty of 2/3-3/4 full houses. That's a serious problem.

The 'Funny Girl' book was never very good, but it didn't need to be, it was about a great theater figure and is a cross between the numbers musical (even if the songs are original in the play) and the integrated-music show. Of course, the show is essentially a worthless property, because it is unique in having no identity outside the star. I don't think this 'role-ownership' ever happened to quite this degree, much moreeven than with 'Gypsy', obviously. They never considered anybody else for the film of Funny Girl). 'Hello,Dolly!' is identified with Carol Channing, but not to that degree, for all obvious reasons, and then a hundred ladies did it. That's interesting information about the original songs --I can certainly see why they could hardly resist using them-- but the original songs are even so not up to the level of great Jule Styne songs, and I wish they could have been true to the original. And having to write a Ziegfeld-style song was something he has done in 'Funny Girl' in a most inspired way--and several times. The whole Broadway score doesn't have a weak song in it, even the light little things. They did add the title song to the play during its run, and that one is perhaps a little weaker, but even the overture on the cast album is quite exciting. It's the only other overture I find distinguished other than 'Candide', which is the best one. They may have put more of the Ziegfeld originals into the movie, but the show was a lot more about Fanny Brice than the movie was. The movie really had nothing to do with Fanny Brice. Thanks for discussing it, though, because I hadn't realized just how far the show moved in just a few years due to that startling Streisand fame. I know this is mostly Forgive me. By the way, I loved the Supremes too, and I also like Diana Ross in 'Mahogany', no matter how corny.

I was reminded of the same number but not in a good way. (I thought Streisand’s rendition of “My Man” overstated and devoid of true emotion.) I am glad to hear someone else say this, dirac. I liked 'My Man' well enough, but the subtlety had been that 'The Music That Makes Me Dance' was the more gorgeous song about the song 'My Man'. I could not believe that they would leave out this song, as well as 'Cornet Man', and 'Rat-Tat-Tat-Tat', all of which were part of one of the last great scores written for a Broadway show (and the critics of the times did not pay this score nearly enough homage; it was in the same year as 'Hello, Dolly!' and is light-years beyond it--and yet a much better film was made of 'Hello, Dolly!' in my opinion.) Nor did they do a fully Ziegfeldian version of 'His Love Makes Me Beautiful'. It's true that 'Don't Rain on My Parade' is wonderful in the film, but with a score like that, you should not fool around and throw out great numbers. In any case, 'Funny Girl' should have been much more like the stage version, because it is about the stage--and that would have kept it from being boring, which I hate to admit that it is, in large part.

I saw it a couple of years ago at Hollywood Pantages, and enjoyed it, but...I hate to say this, when I see things in LA, I tune out a lot of critical faculties (except for opera and concerts), because I'm not working and I just want to be amused. I enjoyed it like a TV show that was pretty good, but I agree, if that's the best, I'd hate to see the worst. Hairspray is nothing special, and the Tonys prove what has happened to the American musical.

Yes, that does sound good for the long term.

People give up too easily, act as if one major new development--such as Wheeldon's current plans-- are to be figured into some future which really is not less vague than Peter Martins's own plans, which may not include retirement for quite a long time.. Kay Denmark may be right to point out that he should be thinking of it even if youthful and in good shape, but maybe he's not even if he should, and I frankly want to keep thinking of him doing it--at least instead of some neat, businesslike-sounding formation like Woetzel/Watts--as long as he can. This, even with tempi that seem like they'd be better used for 'Mighty Mouse' in the operatic caricatures rather than in the Nutcracker. He's still part of the Balanchine tradition, and grew up imbued with Danish ballet, descended from ballet dancers; and if Wheeldon doesn't change his mind over the next 5 or 10 years, who says Peter and Suzanne won't? They might figure out a way to cooperate. She'd certainly slow down those hysterical tempi. Much of this has to do with people's dissatisfaction with Peter Martins, of course, many valid. The Farrell/Martins problems surely must have to do with both their egoes, not just his, even if his seem more distasteful. Egoes come in different varieties. He makes messes, but I think what he's done with the company is at least always alive and has some dynamism to it. He's mediocre in some ways, but the company definitely sparkles a lot of the time, and sometimes just as it used to. Well, this just came to mind after finally reading the whole article about Woetzel's retirement. He's a good dancer, but I don't see the charisma that others find so compelling. He's got all that administrative background also. It's true I've only seen him a couple of times, and he's very good, that's true. That article is not all that impressive. The Harvard stuff doesn't seem to be to be a selling point for being head of NYCB at all. He has a nice, prosaic personality outside of his dancing. 10 years ago, Robin McNeil joined the board (very nice, I don't know what his connection is currently) and we saw him talk to Peter Martins on PBS, now we've got David Gergen as Woetzel's mentor (that's a little less interesting, at least to me--no, it's a lot less.) We have a thoroughly embarassing moment in one of Woetzel's classes when he tries to gloss over Kofi Annan's (non-)involvement with Rwanda at the important moment (the one Clinton regrets most) reported by ththe Times writer (surprisingly, I must say.) If people don't think Martins is much of a romantic figure, then some triumvirate with Martins/Farrell/Kistler might have some Balanchine punch to it (I don't mean this necessarily literally, for one thing I wouldn't know how to, just pointing to some kind of direction that has some resonance to it, some musical and artistic resonance). Kistler's not going to dance all that many more years either. Kistler knows stuff, and again, Wheeldon may not do his Morphoses forever. Is there any reason to think he's written off NYCB forever? What I've just said is a mess, too, but Woetzel/Watts just sounds so anticlimactic, and the ambitious tone in Woetzel's words was off-putting as well, sort of like a twit. It sounds like a real diminution, another mutation of the continued anti-romantic period we seem to be stuck with unless every stone is not left unturned.

Thanks for the kind words and special thanks again to Leonid, without whom I would not have seen this incredibly rare work. After a few hours, I see I was not quite 'on' when describing the drawing of the ballerina. The head is rather in a parallel line to her left shoulder, as if lying on it straight down. It's a very strange drawing, and I think I'll not try to describe it further. And while I still find the Staring Eye paintings soothing, I do now think they are also very haunting. They remind one of the silence in the eyes of deer, and these are paintings that have a physical presence as did their creator--some art reproduces much better than other does: These would not reproduce well. I have especially also noticed this with Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings, which were such a natural for commercial uses such as posters (because they would still be pretty, at least the flowers would be), but you get nothing of the material thing that such artists are made of unless you see the actual object. This is probably even more true with Nijinsky's small, living paintings.

Well, we have to be grateful to Blade for letting us know about this, although the press release I got at the gallery is perhaps better written. I'll type one section: 'As symptoms of a psychological disturbance became increasingly evident, Nijinsky moved with his family to Switzerland. He kept a diary obsessively, and at one point covered his bedroom walls with drawings including the haunting image of a single staring eye [it is not quite accurate to call these 'disembodied' as the Blade writer termed them]. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1919, and spent the rest of his life in and out of hospitalizatino. This body of artwork was created during the early years of that tumultuous period. The works in the show were all created between 1918 and 1919. 'The body of Nijinsky's artwork includes twenty-one gouache on paper abstractions, as well as a series of compulsive pencil and crayon drawings, approximately thirty in number. Vaslav Nijinsky's artwork has been exhibited at the Musee d'Orsay in Paris, and was recently feature in the 'Inner Worlds outside" exhibition at Whitechapel in London." [in that case, did you see it yourself, Leonid?] The staring-eye paintings were arresting and beautiful and would have been so no matter who had painted them. Mostly arrangements of extremely rich red and blue with some white in some of them, these are stunning and there were about 17 of these at the gallery--cumulatively they stay in the mind much more than the drawings and are quite powerful. I did a bit of googling on Malevich, and of the few reproductions I was able to see, 'Black Circle', 'Black Square' and a couple of others are obvious as relatives of Nijinsky's staring eyes. The woman at the gallery said the red was a scarlet, although I would have called it cerise since it is rich and noble, but I may mistakenly think of scarlet as having to have a slight touch of the brassy to it. She said that it was a matter of the colour being water-based. The blue we both thought of as close to midnight blue. The strange thing about these paintings, symptomatic apparently of Nijinsky's deteriorating condition, is that they are very soothing to look at because of the deep colours (some of the Midnight Blues are pools with some black in them as well). Some are very simple, at least one fairly complex and from a distance suggesting something figurative, but only in the way a cloud would. I wouldn't feel 'haunted' by one of these staring eyes. They are surely like the very opposite of Big Brother's Eye, especially knowing the context. The 'compulsive' drawings are compulsive in some way (I said to the lovely girl 'maybe in what is envisioned', she said something about the 'movement he created', frankly I couldn't pick up on anything especially compulsive), but they are never disorderly; in fact, literally all of the work is very careful and neat. And this is in no way detrimental. There's an example of the main variety of these crayon and pencil drawings in the Blade link. I was far less struck by these as works of art, and would have paid little attention to them outside of context. But there were 3 pencil drawings that were figurative there, 2 seeming to be very much ballet-derived. One was very much like a male circus figure (isn't that from Diaghilev's ballets?), and there is one of a ballerina with her head bent almost at right angle to her shoulders which is very delicate. These are very striking and truly lovely. After an hour, I have already forgotten what the 3rd one was. However, it's those paintings of the staring eye that are truly remarkable. I really didn't expect to see anything that extraordinary, and if there had been only one or two I might not have been so struck. But the groupings (in 4's usually) of the 17 or so of these are incredibly moving. The gallery was 'closed today', despite claiming to be open through today, so I had to beg to get in--'I have to write about this for Ballet Talk!'-- as they were getting ready for a new show. This particular building in Chelsea, at 529 W. 20th Street has a few other very good shows in it right now, including some most unusual paintings by Louis Renzoni at street level. Two of these feature a kind of portrait of Grace Kelly and Marilyn Monroe in imagined surroundings and they are very original, and their titles do not include their names. Renzoni's other paintings are not of well-known people and they were also quite beautiful. I'm truly sorry the show has closed, as I think I could have managed to get some BT people down to see these. Those staring eye paintings I will never forget. They are so strong that, even though it would be lovely to own one, you don't have to: They produce images in the mind the second you recall them.

It's clear you meant this in a light and good-humored manner, but I should be specific and say that, no, I meant only if one of our known favourites was in exactly the same situation that Ms. Clarke was in, but then we hear the story after we have a real context for the person-as-artist--it's only human that we do not treat people 'fairly and equally' even if we think we should (and even if we try to). For most of us, the BNP was the first Simone Clarke context we had. She herself said she will be known as the 'BNP ballerina', but we would have viewed the story quite differently had we first thought of her as THE ENB PRIMA BALLERINA ASSOLUTA. By the time we'd heard about the performance, we were still nowhere near this, but we could have some sensation of her dancing as it exists right now.

Both reviews were interesting. As for Mr. Barnbrook, it does sound as if the BNP did not send out the coolest representative, as he is clearly extremely stupid--you know, so interested in the dancing ('don't talk about the holocaust, only the dancing') while 'normally not attending the ballet' and quite sure that 'she's not racist--she's going out with someone who is not of her own race' but...that he hoped they wouldn't have children, because this was 'washing out the identity of this country's indigenous people.' However, he's 'not against mixed marriages'--therefore opponents of Ms. Clarke could not have hoped for a better BNP spokesman there, as he is in every possible way a phenomenon as an intellectual laughingstock. so 'she's not racist', but he is (although he's 'not speaking for the BNP' either. I have rarely read of such a thoroughgoing incompetent.) The second review was interesting and little of it surprised me, although I don't really have anything to base this on. I would have expected an 'efficient performance' under the circumstances, especially since that's at least what she does most likely on a regular basis. Those who've mentioned seeing her have said approving and occasionally praising things about performances they've seen. A good many years back, I remember a couple of essays by Joan Didion and her late husband John Dunne in which they focussed on the phrase 'style is character.' This is an interesting idea, and one with much validity, even if it doesn't mean, as its crudest interpretation would seem to indicate, that we would not like the work therefore: Otherwise, the overly leisured style of Frank Sinatra would lose all its appeal the minute we read of his golf cart crashings in Caesar's Palace or the Sands, hanging out with Bugsy Siegel, etc., and innumerable other examples cited in this thread and elsewhere by all sorts of different fans and observers. There has always been an appeal to the sterilized in the figure of the Nazi, although I think that the 'style is character' is a guide and approach to work, not something literal--at least not always. Nonetheless, an 'efficient performance' is what one might expect in any sort of artist attracted to a Fascist party, knowing, however, that this would not necessarily or always be the case. Of course, there is nothing disparaging in an 'efficient performance' as such; it just isn't enough, and you see them all the time. Another thing that occurred to me is that this fierce little matter would have been different had the subject been of a much higher fame within her field. In other words, she is fairly well-known in the UK, but no household word. If we could have known and appreciated her art at least through publicity of her dancing before this business occurred, there would have been more sympathy for her--even though there is no particular virtue in this. Most of us had never even heard of her among English ballerinas, and so it was easier to concentrate on the story; it was even impossible not to. If it had been Ansanelli, there would have been (probably esp. good example because she had been with NYCB and therefore known to balletgoers in the US) a much greater mixture of the political and the artistic. As it was, it was a while before even a few spoke about sporadic attendance at her performances, and one said 'she delivers the goods.' Which apparently she does. However, if the Independent review is accurate, it was in no way an Olympian performance (if it was, I hope someone will tell us about it). This was what was needed under the circumstances for Ms. Clarke to truly gain supporters in a realpolitik (not just sentimental and general) way. That's not perhaps all that admirable either, but if she had been able to reach the pinnacles of performance that a Nureyev, Fonteyn or Farrell would have been able to do, she would have produced a Real Event in the performance itself. I know that the fact that she merely went ahead and did it at least very professionally did impress me some, therefore making her begin to truly exist more as a dancer outside the tabloid. But a magnificent, commanding and triumphal performance would have affected perception, whether or not it should from an ethical standpoint. From what we have thus far, it seems that she did not achieve this.

I have to pay $11 or $11.50, typically, unless I can get to the first show of the day, which never happens. Most I've paid was $13.50 at beautiful ArcLight in Hollywood, but I was on vacation and didn't care so much--still think movies should not be getting into these ranges. Agree that $10 should be tops.

I have nothing against it, I just think it can survive the transition to the smaller screen, and I'll be happy enough with a library DVD. Too many other things competing with it. Cinema prices are truly idiotic by now, and I won't go unless I think it is something that will offer something other than all that booming sound you always get by now, which screams 'COMPELLING!!!' to you, as in all those previews, and as if each one was the most unique phenomenon in history. I do not like moviehouse sound anymore, it's almost like being in a club.

Thanks, sz, I'm not at all convinced it's worth it for even less than 17. Other reviews have gradually been eroding my interest, but you've clinched it. Money better spent on Fried Calamari or Amaretto...

Oh, yes, 'Band of Angels.' I saw it at a drive-in and wouldn't shut up about it till my other sister said she'd had enough about 'that movie.' that's when drive-ins used to have sheets with the whole month on them and tiny ads spread through the run of each film.

Leonid--thanks for this note, as I cannot keep up with all the Chelsea shows, and this is about to close. However, I may be able to get there tomorrow or Saturday because it's just a few blocks away. Don't expect expert impressions from me though. Raw ones may be the best I can muster, knowing nothing of Malevich to begin with.

Yeah, I was lucky enough to see her do the original 'I'm Still Here' and I always would tell people that she's one of the old-timers still with us. Given that, I would have thought she was older. We still have Deborah Kerr, Maureen O'Hara, and oldest of all, Anita Page, about 102 now. I hate to see all these characterful ladies go. It helps to know Norman Mailer is still with us too. My sister saw Yvonne DeCarlo do 'Hello, Dolly!' in Valdosta, Georgia, sometime in the late 70's! I would have loved to have seen that, and I bet she was very good in it.

Well, he looks pretty healthy and may not want to keep working in his 90's if he gets up there. But they don't ever. Leigh explained how they don't when we were complaining about the prestissimos for poor Dewdrop. They don't listen to the dancers about the tempi either.

Also true is that Martins may or may not be thinking all this early about his successor as Balanchine was. In any case, there was no question he'd keep it as long as he was physically able. Mainly, there were no calls for other successors, as there have been many hopes that Martins would be succeeded, and expressed by several here. So, one difference is that nobody wanted Balanchine to 'give it up' as long as he was alive and able. The same is not true with Martins, but I don't know what that implies as to what people should or should not say.

if he gets more than just one, it can be Morphoses a Wheeldon Company like AOL a Time Warner Company and eventually The Wheeldon Group of Companies.

If they had "spoken" to her, or paid her big issue any mind, I suspect a more moderate party could have nabbed her attention as easily as the BNP. But if you were very committed to the immigration issue, could you possibly not keep up with what was going on? I doubt that they approached her in the same way I've seen Scientologists approach runaways on Hollywood Boulevard. You couldn't be in the mainstream culture, which ENB is part of, without knowing something about the mainstream parties even without trying. That's why even if there's some naivete, I don't believe she is involved only in the immigration issue. Because she could have worked on that with either the Labour Party or the Tory Party, and without the ridiculous baggage that goes with BNP. My main point is that she still could.

Exactly, Old-Fashioned. Immigration problems are hardly unknown to all parties, including all mainstream parties. That's why her choice of BNP seems to me more than just a matter of immigration policies. Where the hell does she think Tony Blair stands on this? all 'give me your tired, your Muslim-possible-terrorist poor yearning to breathe free?' I don't think so. That's why I don't believe the 'manifesto' was 'over her head.' That's what she had to say because she was between a rock and a hard place. Such manifestoes by racist organizations always spell out everything a lot more than an 8th grader even needs.