papeetepatrick

I think that Ashton's Birthday Offering is an interesting example of choreography - if you take as a given that Ashton was a genius (and if anyone disagrees I challenge them to a duel) BO a contemporary ballet piece was choreographed as a piece d'occasion for the RB's 25th anniversay, to not brilliant music. Two strikes against it being the masterpiece it is. But this wasn't the point, Ashton's intellectual thought was to showcase the strengths of five brilliant ballerinas as a tribute to the RB's achievements and legacy, on top of that he modelled each ballerina's role to a school of world ballet, all which influenced the style of the RB. The music was never a consideration besides serving the choreography, the dance and the dancers.

I understand this, and saw BO at your behest on that program. I liked it, but didn't love it. Much preferred his 'Dream'. But I see your point on this.

Likewise, for me the very very best example of how Petipa's genius isn't a slave to music, no matter how glorious is in the grand PDD of Nutcracker, probably the most beautiful pdd music written by the genius of Tchaikovsky...

We'll just stop here on that one. I think it is not only a thousand times weaker than all Piotr's other pdd's put together (you like THIS better than the Black Swan's Champagne Number???? I mean--who wouldn't pay for it with such delicious corporate aegis?), but easily the weakest piece in the Nutcracker itself. As well, I fail to take romance in the usual amorous sense in the Nutcracker anyway, I think the Snowflake business is more the essence--whereas there's some tropical moment here and there in SL and SB. As for what you think Petipa has done with this piece, I have no way of disagreeing with you, and will be happy to agree with you on every single point. I'm quite serious, although I think most BTers are fond of the Grand Pas, Cristian has mentioned it a number of times, and so have numerous others. I always think it seems to come out of an another and totally alien ballet world and sound like Miniature Adult Entertainment in the middle of a Fairy Tale (a real children's one without even too much dwelling on the 'live happily ever after'. 'TOGETHER????!!!')

That's the thing that really really bugs me about Bourne's classical reworkings, he keeps on getting his butt kicked by Tchaikovsky, in his Nutcracker set in a Victorian orphanage, he is totally at a loss in the grand PDD he assembles a full cast onstage, where the Sugar plum fairy and cavalier normally take the stage but in overpopulating the stage with an overabundance of frenticism in place of dance steps he's pulped into bloody submission by Tchaikovsky's music and genius.

Haven't ever been interested to see men doing Swan Lake or any other drag ballet, so have never seen any of these things, whether his or the Trocks. See what you mean about his 'Nutcracker' on the YouTube though, but I was fine with all of it seeming a lot like 'La Cage aux Folles' as long as I could stand it, so didn't get to Grand pas anyway; I guess he ought to do a Jerry Herman show, esp. since I see he also did our exquisite import of 'Mary Poppins', which has always continued to sell even during strikes. His orphanage Nutcracker probably good for Marxists, he seemed to be working the prole angle in his narration, as in 'I believe it used to be a Prince', or something like that. Lots of people crazy about him obviously.

As for Mozart and Bach, they can definitely be choreographed to. I haven't seen any of Balanchine's pieces with Mozart, I just read there are 4 independent ones, although he says that Mozart is the 'most danceable'. Never saw the Morris or Lubovitch Mozart pieces, but several pieces to Bach I've liked. But that aside, I don't think any music is ever 'too good' to be danced to, just because the choreographer hasn't always been able to pull it off (and they certainly often don't even when the music is worthless). Because there simply is so much good music danced to. Balanchine himself was always doing it, whether Bach, Ravel, Brahms, Xennakis, Stravinsky (who got a lot of choreographic use even if you don't like most of the 'Rite' you've seen), Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Debussy. The Schumann I mentioned is great music, and certainly not one I'd have ever imagined becoming a ballet. Graham danced to great music all the time, even if it was sometime 20th century--Copland, Dello Joio, and William Schuman all had their moments, although it's true she was getting the pieces from them, they weren't being resuscitated as Balanchine did with the Schumann and Strauss and Ravel and Brahms, etc.

I get most of what you're saying, and have been educating a friend on da Frutos today, who is in London and will have more opportunity to see him that I will, obviously. Thanks for the thoughtful post, though, although I'd agree we need no duel about Ashton, however I just won't do one for the Grand Pas De Deux, because that's not a cause worth emperishment, at least for me...

It is hard to say what makes someone considered as great and a true legend apart from others like Garbo was. I think you hit a point about the mystery and wordly element of Garbo and I think there are so many things that are hard to explain. Some people simply hold a greater fascination than others, call it charisma, mystery, charm, genius etc.

In Garbo's case (like Monroe's later), it's the camera. Not that either lady wasn't beautiful offstage, but it's what happens when a very few individuals - and in this sense the great movie stars are all freaks - get in camera range. Which is not to discount all the other factors involved.

Agree mostly with dirac about the camera, and the inclusion of the other factors. There really are camera-loving faces, and beauties who are not photogenic.

Yiannis, just a minor point, as I believe that's your quote about. I said 'otherworldly' about Garbo, which is not to say she wasn't 'worldly' (how could she not have been in many ways?), but emphasized 'worldly' for Arletty, because her persona has an 'experienced' and not especially innocent quality to it--even though, god knows, she was thoroughly commanding and magnificent. And, as we know, she had been quite a bit more than just 'around the block'. 'Otherworldly' is the rarer term, and it's usually something we think of (at least I do) in less world-famous figures. There's something otherworldly about lots of ballet figures, for example, perhaps more than movie stars. But even these formulations and characterizations are subject to individual perception and subjectivity. Many find Suzanne Farrell otherworldly, others find Martha Graham otherworldly, and some Nureyev. But among movie stars, Garbo has that particular quality. I don't think that in itself makes her personally more nor less admirable, it is rather an essential part of her unique artistry.

in abstract ballet the choreography should interpret the music.

This is actually the major big no no in regards to dance and choreography, be it abstract or story based. If this is so then dance is nothing more than an adjunct to music, filler, a pleasent sight to accompany a score - why not just listen to the music?

Not necessarily, of course, is it necessarily 'just an adjunct' to the music, and this is patently obvious, unless it was more or less intended to 'honour certain music'. And in certain cases, you can 'just listen to the music and be satisfied', even if you'd rather see the ballet, as Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev, or Copland's 'Appalachian Spring' (which doesn't mean any of these are primarily non-dance musical works, they're dance works). For this to be literally true, you need mediocre but serviceable music like Minkus to make sure you'd never 'just want to listen to the music'. Although Delibes is pretty reliable for the 'rarely just listened to' category for me as well. Balanchine's 'Robert Schumanns's Davidsbundlertanze' is equally about both the music and the abstract + story dance piece, although they're not usually in quite that much equality. 'La Valse' is also equally about both, whether Ashton or Balanchine, it doesn't even matter if the choreographer didn't think so. Anyway, the orchestras often prove that the music is less important, since most of them are vastly inferior to symphony or opera orchestras.

It's also the cornerstone of the very worst kind of choreography the step per beat, the monkey see monkey do school of choreography - where a step occurs on every beat, when the music tempo increases so does the freneticism of the steps, when it slows the dance slows, there's no interaction between dance and music except a literal interpretation.

Yes, that--when it occurs, and I'm sure it does. I wouldn't mind some specific examples of that, though; they make me think of Hanon of Czerny exercises.

It's true that ballet is far more linked to score and music than modern, indeed Merce Cunningham's legacy is the freeing of dance from music entirely, or rather freeing it from dependency.

These 'freeings' are real, but they are not universal and take a long time to take effect everywhere.

But then the question of what is good choreography is very different - more rooted in the genius of an individual choreographer than anything else, and each great choreographer's relationship to music is unique to the artist, as distinct as their language or use of the classical lexicon.

So that there are different degrees of 'dependency' or 'interdependency', and there should be 'interdependency' unless you leave out the music. That we don't hear enough clanky, corruptly unmusical ballet orchestras which make the dancers look like forsaken gods and goddesses is not really a serious problem, of course.

It's a toughie, but the first step to appreciating dance is to see it on its own apart from the score.

I'd think that would be a later step, because you can't do it, to begin with, if you go to a live performance with music. You'd have to start with watching taped perfs. with the volume down, and I can hardly see the value. I think that's valuable as a later step, but remember--dance is far more dependent on music than music is on dance: The question never even comes up. Who ever asked 'how can I appreciate music without all that choreography', so dance is musical before music is 'dancerly'.

However, it does occur to me that there are balletomanes who absolutely adore ballet and who have almost no interest in music per se to speak of. Obviously, that's not the way to solve the problem, but that's one case in which your formula was built-in, as it were. I oughtn't to knock that, though, since if I hadn't known her, I might have never looked much at ABT, and she couldn't have cared less about NYCB and 'all that emphasis on the music'. It bored her out of her skull.

This one was interesting, and then I googled a bunch of others, which were substantially the same. It puts box-office in a perspective I'd have never imagined: you'd never know from any of these (and they're all about the same as this one) that K. Hepburn, Garbo, and Dietrich were even major stars if you just look at the ones for the whole decade. Even in the one miliosr put up, you don't see Dietrich or Hepburn a single time. Gary Cooper finally makes his way in, and is in the Top 10 for the 40s and 50s, but you also don't see Turner, Gardner, Hayworth, or many of the stars we think exemplify those periods most. Gable is an exception, as is Cooper later. Greer Garson is in the 40s list. I like the way this has turned out, so that the money means somewhat less if you take the long view. Marilyn Monroe is not even in the Top 10 for the 50s, nor Robert Mitchum. Fortunately, there were big enough spaces to get all this 'minor movers and shakers' some business. One of the decades has no top female stars, that must have been the 50s, yes. interesting. How nice to be able to think of this factor as negligible in some important ways.

I did not know that you were a Deneuve admirer. I saw her most recent film "Potiche" directed by François Ozon based on a play by Barillet and Grédy (who have written "Cactus flower" as well) and where she appears opposite Gérard Depardieu. It is quite a hit and Deneve and Depardieu are wonderful in it. I also love her too, especially her personality and style. As for Redgrave I do consider her as the greatest actress of our times. What I especially love about her is that "absence" of "obvious technique" in her acting and that radiant, glowing humanity she has, which is something that Garbo had as well.

Joseph Losey who directed Vanessa once referred to Glenda Jackson whom he directed in "The Romanctic Englmish woman" and sais something like that. He felt that Glenda Jackson, although post strong and powerful as an actress lacked that capacity of Vanessa to go deep into her parts and explore their utmost depths. He also added that Vanessa was like Garbo in that respect, they both had the capacity to go deep into their characters and explore them. I do not have the exact quote and it is around these lines, I remember reading it in a Joseph Losey biography a long time ago.

To go back to "Camille" I am glad that we all love it, especially Garbo's performance and I think it would be just to praise Cukor's direction as well. True, without Garbo this would not have been the great film it is but Cukor also manages to skilfully accompagny this performance a create quite a convencing visual universe around her. Just to mention a few of the scenes which illustrate this. The opening scene at the carriage, with Marguerite's appearance with the camelias lovingly framing her exquisite face; The scene at the theatre where she mistakes Armand with the Baron de Varville (a scene which was copied at the film "Moulin Rouge" with Nicole Kidman!); the scene where Marguerite starts to cough when she dances and she is cruelly abandonned by everybody except Armand etc.

Agree with everything except what Losey said about Jackson. He knows more than I do, god knows, but she had something which really does go deep too. You see it in the dowd (Julie Christie keeps calling the character that) in 'Return of the Soldier', where despite her plainness, she is the only one who can comfort Alan Bates in shell shock. And you can feel very strongly why he could be comforted only by her; I've rarely been more touched by their first scene together. Similarly, in Ken Russell's version of D.H. Lawrence's 'The Rainbow', there is a scene when she and Chris Gable are at the banquet table after their daughter's wedding. He keeps bothering with his nose while trying to make a proper wedding speech, and at some point says some about 'an angel he knew'. Glenda, sitting at the table, sees him in his obvious irritation while trying to ignore that he's bothered with his own person, and says, uncannily and all of a sudden 'Well, I had an angel went up me nose one time'. Gable gets very tickled, and then there's a look of understanding and love between them that makes it like it's their own wedding again. And who could be more lovable than Chris Gable? He was the perfect 'Boyfriend' with Twiggy. Of course, there's her stereotyped English gruffness, and her range isn't that wide, but whatever Losey may have been dissatisfied in her, it projects to some of us as very moving--not unlike the final scene in 'Les Temps Qui

Changent' when Deneuve smiles at Depardieu upon his awakening (Techine is my favourite director currently working.) And since this came up about warmth, it's true that in that scene and only in recent years that Deneuve has begun to show her own warmth more, and play down her vanity. She was already phenomenal by 'Place Vendome', gambling and cussing like crazy.

But, let's face it, actors all do a lot of trash material. Vanessa will do 'Mission Impossible' and that atrocious thing full of everybody doing cameos starring Nicholson 'The Pledge', just godawful, including Vanessa and Mirren.

Thanks for mentioning the new Deneuve/Depardieu film, i will certainly want to see it; they always have a special relationship onscreen due to their friendship and many films.

I'm way off-topic, but these are related issues about acting and projection;. But I'll get back ON TOPIC! The thing that primarily sets Garbo apart from all other actresses is, I believe, an otherworldliness, and she was so comfortable with this that she lived it the rest of her life (in the films, it's perhaps most obvious in 'Grand Hotel' and 'Susan Lennox') Arletty was equally, if not more sophisticated in some ways (and TOO sophisticated in some ways, although I doubt I'd have been above it either ), but is precisely the paragon of the worldly. Marlon Brando adored her and met her, she was very dismissive, and he called her a 'tough article'. She coudn't be fooled with. Equally, with canbelto, I'd have to say I find both Audrey Hepburn and Delphine Seyrig somewhat more to my own taste in feminine beauty (although Garbo in Anna Karenina and 'Queen Christina' esp. is breathtaking) But Quiggin once said that Garbo gave that mysterious persona in a very unique way, and sustained it throughout her life. This doesn't mean I think she's the greatest actress who ever lived, but that her contribution was one of those at the very pinnacle of greatness, because of its singularity (and professionalism.)

I won't say much about about the Kidman 'Moulin Rouge', except copying 'Camille' went unnoticed by me in my total abhorrence of the entire proceedings. btw, that scene in 'Welcome to LA' with G. Chaplin with the 'Garbo Complex' is not a parody of Garbo, but rather of a specifically los angeles sort of neurotic, living a Hollywood-subculture life--it is actually very affectionate to Garbo, and when Keith Carradine first meets crazy Karen Hood (Geraldine's character), she's sitting on the curb in Century City, and immediately starts talking about how she's just seen 'Camille'. She says, in this weirdly defiant way 'I love Greta Garbo', to which, as that mid-70s affluent young person would know to 'Yeah, she's nice when ya by ya-self'. I thought that was very profound a thought about Garbo. This film is mostly forgotten, although I've written extensively about it, it includes a number of the Altman stable of the time and is Alan Rudolph's first film. I had to pay a substantial amount to get it on eBay, although I had seen it at the time of release. It was, at the time, thought to be a kind of sequel to 'Nashville', but not as spectacular, although to me it means much more, and directly caused my several-decades love affair with Los Angeles. It is out of print, though, although may be on DVD by now. Oh yes, there is a final still of Carradine at the end which is also a kind of homage to Garbo, the final shot of 'Queen Christina'. Carradine was stunning at the time (and a hot property for a very brief time in the 70s), and for final close-ups of faces in movies, those are the two best I know.

DWTS is always slightly B-list stars anyway, not that we dont' like some B-list stars (although Florence Henderson is not a big draw, I can see that Pam Anderson might be, and she sounded charming on the show, although I've never seen it yet.) Ms. Palin's appearance doesn't surprise me, as I'll say, in a less elegant way, that Sarah Palin is extremely pushy, and that's how one deals with her or not. Sometimes it doesn't work for her, as she was trashed at the end of the McCain campaign, and her miscalculation of Tea Party candidates for the Senate races make her an easy target for having lost the Senate. Yes, sure, her stardom is 'being Sarah Palin's daughter'. I suppose they are getting us used to being with the Future First Family, should Big Ms. Palin accept the assignment, although in the article I linked about Sarah's own Reality TV show, she says she prefer the great outdoors to some dusty political office, or some similar drek. Yeah, uh-huh. I guess DWTS was just too B-list for the Mama Grizzly, although that would have been interestingly flagrant. But she's just....too bizzy....

To go off topic again, I saw that "Journey", the same weekend I saw "Movin' On." (Not a good weekend.) She played Mary like a sloppy drunk with a borderline personality, and she did dominate the production with the inappropriateness of her characterization and how it grated. Given that, I can't imagine her as Camille. There's nothing soft about her.

I had a friend who said it was the best stage performance he ever saw, and I always regretted missing it. But don't agree that 'there's nothing soft about her', and I think it is very apparent as far back as her Guinevere, and in many, many things like 'Morgan', even in 'Julia', and certainly in 'Yanks' and 'Isadora' (the film--I hadn't been aware that she did Isadora on stage), where she is very touching as are the rest, and even in more schlocky things like 'A Month by the Lake'. I think she's probably the greatest film actress alive (or definitely one of the three or four, and not quite my favourite, Deneuve is, of course), but I also wouldn't see her as 'Camille', I only mentioned that because of the grandeur that she is capable of quite like Garbo; but I just don't see her as a courtesan very easily. A monarch yes, and without effort, which is part of her uniqueness as a great actress. dirac says 'too big and too hearty'. I think Garbo is very big as Marguerite, but not 'too'--I guess I just meant 'in the grand manner'. I think other things are wrong about Redgrave for that. I can think of films I don't like her in, they are more often when they are humorless, although they're usually minor, as her tiresome part in 'Oh What a lovely War!' which seems to be reflecting her on personal politics too much (but Susannah York and Dirk Bogarde are great in that, despite it's an overblown production of a good show), but then so does 'Julia' and I like her there. She was magnificent as 'Hecuba' the one time I saw her onstage in 2005 at BAM--born for Euripides and really hard things. Agree with yiannis about her performance in 'Orpheus Descending', which I saw as a filmed version of the same production you saw. I guess I think of British film actresses of the same period, I find Julie Christie colder (but mainly just good for that kind of part as in 'Return of the Soldier' and Maggie Smith in lots of pictures, just to name a couple)

I also liked it that Lubitsch said what I'd always imagined about Cooper (although I think he is more beautiful than Garbo personally ). I also like Lubitsch for the one movie I've seen with Theda Bara (although I can't remember the name of it)--that's another whole hobby-realm for movie fans, the slightly obscure diva: Bara, Pola Negri, Clara Bow, Nita Naldi. I'm even into overly-plump Vilma Banky. It's interesting to see when these more fleshy types were the rage, of which Mae west is maybe the last (although she's certainly not obscure to anybody.)

Cary Grant would have been superb in 'Ninotchka', but I do like Melvyn Douglas quite a bit in it, which greatly surprised me; I usually don't pay much attention to him. But 'Ninotchka' really is to me just silly, even if well-made.

Yiannis, thank you for telling me about Lubitsch's feeing about Coop and Garbo. I like all your stories you tell about these various luminsaries, and who better to get it from a 'worshiipper'. I can't say I suffer from this particular malady, but I certainly don't disapprove of it: our own

Farrell Fan has written that he worships the toe shoes he keeps of Suzanne Farrell. I've heard various talk about Garbo and Arletty, who would perhap be THE high-toned movie divas to 'worship'. I just don't know how to do that particular 'fanhood', even thought I've published things about obscure fanhoods...tney had more to do with me and my childhood moviegoing than beimg objective, in most cases. It would easily follow that Arletty would, because of her immensity, be able to express her feeling about Garbo's beauty, and it's hardy any secret thet you'd think she was the most beautiful. I like that attitude, and it reminds me of a guy I met at a party who said his apt. was a 'shrine to Claudette Colbert'. For me, I haven't this aptitude, although Garbo is definitely in the top 10.

Garbo is sublime in 'Camille'. we're all agreed on that, and I think it comes out out in the beginning of the film, this gramdeur of which she became ore and more able to embody: That is not sometning Katharine Hepburn couid have done (there's a bigness and grandeur she could have never captured), any more than Garbo could have done 'Long Day's Journey Into Night' (I think Vanessa has the range to do some of what both Garbo and Kate do, but probably not 'Camille'). Nobody can do everything, and they probably don't want to. I DO think k. Hepburn may have been able to do 'Two-Faced Woman', it seemed very American to me, but Garbo was fine in it, although it 's not a great film.

I do agree with dirac that Coop was marvelous with Dietrich, who has such a marvelous sense of humour, on top of everything else. There's nothing I'd rather see that her scenes, in furious German, with Fritz Lang, during the filming of 'rancho Notorious'. She was formidable enough without that, but I bet nothing surpassed it.

Gary Cooper was also too old by 1936, but it would not have been a bad part for him in his salad days. Hopelessly American, but an actor of much greater sensitivity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gary_Cooper_in_Mr._Deeds_Goes_to_Town_trailer.JPG

There's Coop in 1936 with Jean Arthur, but man, this guy had IT...I always see him and Garbo together and they never were; I'm sure I could figure a way to see him as Armand, even if he later told Ingrid Bergman 'why can't you just talk American?' My father and I had such a blast watching that movie together (I think it's 'Saratoga Trunk'). 'Hopelessly

American' is great , because he was one of the ultimate all-Americans--looks like transplanting from Kent and Bedfordshire to Montana 'took'; even though his mom sent him back there for three years when about 10, I think. I can't believe I didn't know he was Selznick's first choice for Rhett Butler, and rejected it. Of course, I can imagine him being even better than Gable, but maybe not.

Maybe he would have been esp. good in the early 'Anna Christie' with Garbo. I think that's about the time he did 'Farewell to Arms' with Helen Hayes.

Cukor was right in that respect when he defended Taylor's performance saying that he made Armand very appealing by his youth and beauty and impetuous manners. And I think that youthful impetuous romanticism of Robert Taylor create quite a magical contrast with Garbo's mature tragic persona in the film. And Taylor's immature, romantic image creates an interesting contrast with the magnificent cynical performance of Henry Daniel as the Baron de Varville ( I would be tempted to say that Henry Danniel is almost Garbo's best acting partner in all of her films).

This all makes sense, but it may be that I just don't think there is enough of some kind of energy about Taylor, not even the spark that Cruise once in awhile will flash on suddenly, in the middle of an otherwise thoroughly routine performance. And I have noticed that I differ a little with Kael in her comparison of Taylor and Cruise in another way too: A couple of times Cruise has actually interested me, but leaving 'Camille' aside, I've just never found Taylor to quite get beyond something that seems sort of stolid. I guess it's about the same way I feel about Tyrone Power.

On yes, Jean-Louis Barrault could have done this, it just occurs to me. He was a brilliant actor (stage esp.), which some don't know if they're familiar only with 'Les Enfants du Paradis'; I imagine many think of him as a mime more like Marcel Marceau. Who could have been more elegant and 'immature' (in the part) than Baptiste? He's not macho enough for Hollywood of the 30s, but he's right for the 19th century, isn't he? And my favourite macho actors of the 30s in Hollywood are all of them wrong for Armand, too American.

Oh, but then, we've forgotten Olivier, who would have been perfect, better here than Queen Cristina, I'm glad Gilbert did that. Not that Taylor is bad, but he does seem out of place sometimes. In either case, it does seem Taylor's good, but not quite inspired, performance, that is the main reason Garbo doesn't have a film that is quite a masterpiece the way Arletty does with 'Children of Paradise'. although there are few films that good anyway.

Callas probably has some expression that is modelled on Garbo, I'm sure you could demonstrate this. I think I was mainly thinking of walking, which with Callas is sometimes much faster than Garbo ever moves (even as Ninotchka, it's the slightly over-the-top regimented walk, but it's not so fast--she often strides, also, with big, never dainty, steps, through all the movies that i can recall specific scenes offhand). It's a little like the way Marilyn Monroe is so effortlessly sensual, but it's 'takin' it's time', but by the time Bardot comes on the scene (when this sort of sex bomb had become an explicit type), she's very voluptuous too, but adds a touch of her own by quickening it; I'm not sure 'animated' is a word that ever comes to mind with Marilyn, although I'm not sure, and I'm still a BIG fan of Marilyn.

Also makes me remember a discussion of Garbo with a friend who used to follow her around town till he realized it was scaring her. I was telling him how funny I thought she was (although this isn't very nice of me to say) in 'Romance' when she rushes the maid out so she can keep her appointment with her beau, then walks through the door with that bustle on and slams the door stealthily but decisively (and this definitely is a matter of movement, although not one of the most graceful examples, too humorous); this always makes me laugh, as does the way her 'I vant to be alone' scene in 'Grand Hotel' when she gently but adamantly pushes the servant out and locks the door.

No, now it occurs to me that Cary Grant could have gotten this exactly right, and I'm no big fan of his. I don't know what the studio conflicts were off-hand, but somebody will.

She also has in her movements the grace of a dancer, but we know very little about Garbo's tastes in dance despite the claims of various biographers who tend to to indicate that she was rather indifferent to these forms of art.

I'd say she had grace, but not 'in the sense of a dancer' most of the time, at least in a conventional sense. There's a lot of 'debutante slouch' which is very sexy, but that's not esp. dancerly. There are times, as with the fan here, and when she swoops over to the phone in 'Grand Hotel', reacting in a singularly anomalous way at last to the reality that she has a thoroughly illegal intruder. There's another moment like that in the New York part of Susan Lennox, in which there is a large movement across the room to make a phone call. Her movements are unique, but I can see them as inspiring dance and choreographers more than the other way around--she's often angular and maybe kind of 'staccato', but never moves with the seamless, not-touching-the-ground quality that ballerinas will often have offstage (even when they're not dressed up. Audrey Hepburn had a lot more of that sort of movement and it was always apparent, but she'd been trained in ballet.) I can see miliosr's point about how she might have been aware of the current graham developments in dance, though, although the movements themselves are more like Martha herself on those two films.

At any rate, many opera signers, dancers and choreographers loved Garbo and were inspired by her, especially in Camille. Callas worshiped her (interestingly enough the two women knew each other and met on several occasions on the Onassis boat). The other Divina alwas expressed her admiration for Garbo's Camille which inspired her own great Violetta in La Traviata.

That's interesting about Callas, she definitely was quite the Fan of other women, although many competing stars admired Garbo (including Dietrich.) But Callas's could have been

that determined fixation on 'looking glamorous and svelte'. Again A. Hepburn, of whom she was a huge fan, and kept photos of her in her dressing room. Lots of women wanted Hepburn's mannequin look on which hung Givenchy's gowns so well, and you can see Callas working to imitate this look in a 'Tosca' from the late 50s in Paris, which I saw on DVD a few years ago. This is a pity, because she never looks like Audrey Hepburn except very superficially (and god knows, was at the other end of the universe in terms of temperament, her attempts at seeming 'sweet' don't tend to convince); but that was part of her tragedy, which was pretty complex. Callas's movement probably wasn't influenced by Garbo's, though, as Callas could dart like a reptile on to the stage, as in her scenes with Scarpia; one usually sees Garbo as rather extravagantly leisurely, rarely furious (I can't think of any). Her Traviata would have been fascinating to see in light of this 'worship of Garbo', though. Although in walking to the elevator as the ballerina in 'Grand Hotel', it's businesslike--which reminds me, I find her convincing as the ballerina in 'Grand Hotel', but it's not because of any ballerina-like movements, but rather the persona she successfully project.

As for artists of all kinds being influenced by Garbo, I think she has been a huge influence, and I have often wondered in particular about Graham, but never found it mentioned. There are even strange things like Robert Wilson photographing Isabelle Huppert as Garbo, which for me is more curious than beautiful, and I don't think it works.

I have never been able to find Robert Taylor interesting. I can tell that he is objectively handsome, but in this one case, it doesn't translate as especially attractive to me, although he's serviceable enough (Pauline Kael's comparison of Taylor and Tom Cruise I thought astute--just a kind of trademarked brand, more or less always the same, was the gist, I believe). I'm wondering what French or Italian actor of the time might have seemed right for this. Someone like Gerard Philippe or Louis Jourdan sound right had they been around that early, although they may still be too light; again, I can easily imagine Charles Boyer in this with her as well as Vronsky.

I believe I posted an ancient New York Times review of Sarah Bernhardt in 'Camille', when she did it in New York. That would have been a Camille to muse over as well. I think I'll see if I can find it, because the critic was indeed all superlatives....no, couldn't find it, there was only an abstract from SB's perf. of it in D.C., but this little site had a comparison of Garbo and Bernhardt in the role (or at least a line about it}:

http://www.leninimports.com/greta_garbo_camille.html

Alan Rudolph's film 'Welcome to L.A' has a marvelous neurotic character with a Garbo Complex, who has just seen 'Camille' and is imitating her cough for awhile, and later screams 'Nanine! Nanine!' in the mirror, and tells Sissy Spacek "I don't think I have very long to live...' This is a marvelous performance, and not least because Geraldine Chaplin at that age (in 1977) was an equivalent screen beauty to Garbo, so it didn't seem stupid.

http://tv.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/arts/television/12palin.html?_r=1&ref=television

If Bristol wins, just think how it can be integrated into that OTHER reality TV show. Maybe Ms. Palin can ask her daughter if she feels differently now that she won the mirrorball trophy, and Bristol can say 'In what respect, Charley?'

Well said.

Indeed, and this would have been my first realization that it was Veteran's Day had I not gone to the post office and found it mysteriously closed (about 6 others discovered it the same way, and one woman was very upset that she 'wasn't paying enough attention'.)

From wiki:

Once principal photography was completed, Preminger hired David Raksin to score the film. The director wanted to use "Sophisticated Lady" by Duke Ellington for the main theme, but Raksin objected to the choice. Alfred Newman, music director for Fox, convinced Preminger to give Raksin a weekend to compose an original tune. Inspired by a Dear John letter he had received from his girlfriend, Raksin wrote the haunting theme[7] for which Johnny Mercer later wrote lyrics. It eventually became a jazz standard recorded by more than four hundred artists, including Stan Kenton, Dick Haymes, Woody Herman, Nat King Cole, The Four Freshmen, and Frank Sinatra.[8] Preminger was so pleased with Raksin's score the two collaborated on four additional films.[9]

LOVE the Bird version, Cristian, thanks! There's that weird little half-faux-orientalism of an intro, then all of sudden without warning, you're into that SONG. Oh yeah, that song is one of the great ones, and this is a really pretty and delicious version.

Oh, I refused to see the film once I found out that Lindsay Lohan would have a part on it...

I'm so glad you said that. Lohan's mostly dreadful, but incredibly, I thought she was the only good thing in it, I think that was before she started really doing the drugs 'n' psycho numbers.

I agree that Tierney wouldn't be well suited for the more vulgar, steamy vamps like some of her contemporaries[...] Still, I feel that Laura's leading character makes Tierney's distant, somehow aloof projection-(probably due to her real turbulent,suffering personality)-a perfect match. And as I said earlier, there's definitely a mysterious, dreamy quality on the film that I believe is the perfect frame for Tierney's natural demeanor.

On the other hand, I don't think Hollywood has had many female faces who can match Tierney's natural, perfect beauty. Maybe Liz Taylor.

I didn't initially remark on this, because I didn't get around to ever seeing it till the 00's, and I couldn't believe how disappointed I was with it. I think I had expected it to be much more hypnotic and haunting, like 'Rebecca' maybe. I like Dana Andrews a lot myself, but much more in Lang's 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt', also with Joan Fontaine, one of my favourite actresses (much prefer to her sister Olivia). I've never found Tierney quite as beautiful as others do, I can think of several I find much more naturally beautiful and who also have more Star Quality, but I have friends who feel that way about her. The music is the best part for me, I guess.

-(I always play to place certain actresses in totally opposite roles and genres to see how do they do in my mind, and so far very few I think could make the final cut...the "Streep" cut... )

That's a well-worn topic in movie discussion everywhere, but fwiw, I'd hate 99% of the actress roles I've seen if I thought of Streep in them. She's good in some things, but just like all the others, she's not suited for nearly everything, she's just got this 'chameleon' thing. I don't even think it necessarily gives her the biggest range, just that her acting style is a strange amalgam of flashiness and refined detail, which is a fairly unusual combination. But, even to keep it non-controversial, she could have never done what Geraldine Page did (whom Streep admires, by the way); all you have to do is see her maudlin tears in 'Prairie Home Companion' to know how really awful she is capable of being.

I just read that Hayworth and Ford co-starred in 5 movies. I see what her appeal was, although she's never captivated me the way some of the other big diva types have; people talk about her vulnerability (I've never read a bio, and don't know much about her), and Kim Novak, who worked with her in 'Pal Joey' with Sinatra said she was one of the 'sweetest people she'd ever met, and who had no idea whatever of how to protect herself' (may not be perfect quote). I do like this movie though, and Glenn Ford was marvelous when young in a lot of things--tough.

Thank you, Anne. And I also hadn't known that Martins's Swan Lake was made for RDB. I started hearing about it after years of being totally out of the balletgoing loop--and it never occurred to me that Martins would be making a large work for any company except NYCB, even if RDB is his old home. Seeing it at RDB might make it seem totally different from seeing it at NYCBallet, where the emphasis has always been on a lot of energy and maybe even boisterousness (all the years of complaints about sloppiness having also always had to do with not enough rehearsal time.) Alexandra got me started on an interest in Bournonville, which I couldn't really fathom at first, and with each new report, I realize I have to eventually schedule Copenhagen during a season, as I'm convinced RDB is a rare, unique world of its own. Someone mentioned they'd be touring, including New York, which means I'll see them, but eventually I want to see that new opera house, which does sound elegant.

Jane mentioned the old Royal Theater, and so that was still being used at least in 1996. Is it still operative, and what is presented there now? I know nothing of Danish theater, and little about Swedish, a little here and there about the latter (have at least read 'Miss Julie'), probably mostly from Ingmar Bergman movies.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/06/david-stubbs-music-art-rothko

This might have something in it, I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I will. But Stravinsky is much less obviously removed from the old traditions than is Stockhausen and Boulez. If 'Sacre' shocked people, it certainly wasn't because it wasn't essentially romantic--unless primitive sensuality is considered 'unromantic', which might be an important distinction to some. Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with Haydn, but neither does Debussy. Even Schoenberg, except for very early like Gurre-Lieder and Verklaerte Nacht, which might be crudely comparable in certain ways to the general audience ear for some Stravinsky, is later on much less 'easy listening' than most Stravinsky, as I hear it. Without reading the linked article, I'd have my own ideas on one general idea: with the most extreme, and even unpleasant, painting, or sculpture or construction, you can remember it in your mind's eye after you've seen it, just as you can Leonardo or Caravaggio; you can't remember anything but a general atmosphere of some of the atonal and dodecaphonic composers and beyond--no tunes and motifs to remember and hum, but that's an interesting development. It might be, sometimes, not that you 'don't get a piece', but that you just 'don't like it'. I think the 'Five Easy Pieces' are pretty forgettable, but I don't find Pulcinella, l'Histoire Soldat, or many other Stravinsky pieces forgettable. For the less repetitive music of High Modernism, you really do have to listen to them a lot more times to enjoy them, so that, for example you know that you'd rather hear 'Le marteau sans maitre' than 'In Memoriam: Bruno Maderna', etc., of Boulez.

What a fine article. I'm so glad you linked to it--so many details and it brought things to life I wouldn't have imagined even in the performance I saw here. I agree I don't think anybody would look good in the Russian man's costume, that it was one of the most hideous things I ever saw in a ballet, but I do recall some thought it was effective somehow.

It must be that writing for magazines that are exclusively devoted to dance can allow for this kind of writing, as is also seen in DanceView Times; it hadn't occurred to me until I read this one, though, that the most famous critics, as Macaulay in the NYTimes, often have to 'sell ballet', since it is often perceived as 'endangered', as well as write about the performances themselves, and with lots of superlatives and lows as well to make it more sensational. I can see why those broad strokes are needed in the big papers, but this is much more of a pleasure to read for me, which may mean I'm gradually getting a little less superficial in my understanding of ballet.

Esp. liked the descriptions of the sets and the way they harmonized with the auditorium (always that wonderful Scandinavian use of wood), but also was interested in Dronina, whom you described as 'her dancing is spectacular, in the current fashion'. Does that mean she might be like another Osipova, with the extensions that are by now so easy that they don't stick out? or that this kind of spectacular dancing is by now almost taken for granted (I've noticed in the 4 years I've been reading here, that the controversy over extensions is not so hotly debated anymore, which may mean that more and more are able to do them effortlessly--the one clip I've seen of Osipova was like that, they didn't seem affected).

(The second one, from the ballroom back to the lake, is rather beautiful in its own right - almost part of the choreography.)

I think I was struck by that too last winter, and that even many of the most naysaying balletomanes (about this particular production) rather found that original. I recall it has a crisp, somewhat sudden feel to it (I may not know, of course, but there was a sort of very economical sense to it, in the best sense.)

Hadn't known that the Act II was so 'after Balanchine', which I saw only once so many years ago.

The panelled set for the third act, which I've seen described as dark and gloomy, also looks perfectly natural here - it could easily have just grown out of the surrounding walls.

Really liked that, and the painted curtains and backdrops too.

I'd never heard of this, and discovered it by accident in the library catalog, trying to find the May Britt movie. Never heard anybody mention it here, but they probably have.

It's never really beautiful in a rapturous choreographic sense, but it gains power as it goes along. For a long time, Lola Lola has been given endless whorish mannerist movements, which are effective in a gamey way--you can almost smell the place, which is much more 'rue St. Denis' than the club in the Dietrich/Jannings movie. Dominique Khalfouni seems a fine dancer, even with all this extremely involved 'primping', which is what most of the early scenes come across as being. Petit is Professor Unrat, and becomes more and more moving as the piece progresses. The wedding scene is more imaginative and I began to really take it seriously there, which I think is about halfway through. The tragic ending is the one part of the piece in which the piece manages to come up to the power of the old film, as some of Lola's movements of disdain and dismissiveness go even beyond what Dietrich did.

I think this is a very worthwhile piece, even though when I started watching it, it seemed a period sort of thing. But I think it is a good example of a story ballet, and much better than what I've seen of Petit's Proust (I can't stand the Morel/St. Loup duet), although I do like the 'Carmen' with Zizi Jeanmaire, Baryshnikov and Denys Ganio. Only thing I saw in person was 'Notre Dame de Paris', which I thought nothing special. I definitely think it's better than many story ballets of the last 50 years I've seen, much better than MacMillan's Mayerling, and Marius Constant's music is not bad at all, with Brechtian/Weillish singing at the club early on by those low-voiced chanteuses in Threepenny Opera/Mahagonny dress-looks.

This says 1988, which means at least for the videorecording (it's an old vhs that somehow NYPL still has around.) So does someone know about this work, does it go back still further? Has anybody seen it live? This was National Ballet of Marseilles, but was this in POB repertory?

I liked it. Ms. Khalfouni is beautiful, but can also seem really grainy, and if Ms. Kaufman wants to talk about 'crotches cranked open', this is the place (and it's even meant to be that explicitly, which I doubt those Balanchine-inspired works were, i.e., the Professor definitely surveys the territory Lola is giving him a tour of); some of those early scenes to show off Lola are more effective in hindsight than when you're watching--you can't be believe he pampers the character to this degree, but maybe it works, she really does always seem to be posing and primping. And Mr. Petit is very fine and deeply touching when he dances longer toward the end, although as a dancer, he is not ever going to look scruffy in the same way Jannings could; the clown makeup makes you think of Marcel Marceau a bit. And the nightclubbers' uncaring attitude is very effectively evoked by Petit's choreography for them.

I'm impressed! This shows how to use the internet and boards and bleugs to produce results offline in a very productive way. I'm sure you put the fear of something or other, Brioche. All very cool. I think we should all complain about any extra charges we find suspect, although I tend to avoid all of them by going to the box office directly, because I just like to, and there's always a fee avoided that way. But that's not going to always be convenient. Obviously, when I get my tickets for LA events, I have to order them online or by phone, and pay some fees, but this thread shows them to have definitely gotten more complicated, just as that baggage fee was thrown at some of us unexpectedly last year, AND the workers tell you that 'it's always been that way' or are told to say that, if you ask (which I did.)

Here's Frank Rich today. Very amusing on the 'landed aristocracy' of the GOP versus the hicks:

"Mike Huckabee, still steamed about Roves previous put-down of Christine ODonnell, publicly lamented the Republican establishments elitism and country club attitude. This country club elite, he said, is happy for Tea Partiers to put up signs, work the phones and make those pesky little trips door-to-door that it finds a frightful inconvenience. But the members wont let the hoi polloi dine with them in the clubs main dining room any more than David H. Koch, the billionaire sugar daddy of the Republican right, will invite ODonnell into his box at the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center to take in The Nutcracker. "

B-b-b-b-but will even the Esteemed Eponymous know from Arabian, Candy Cane and Dew Drop as well as George W. Bush must have when it was performed at the White House? (although I don't know what 'Nutcracker' was done for the 'First Fan' as drb referred to him. I assume Dubya knew, though...)

If any good the practice had done in my case is that I have decided to attend to as many performances as I can..(I used to do the same in Havana, unlike my friends who were more into specific dancers). At the end I know that sooner or later I HAVE to bump into-let's say randomly- Jeanette doing T&V... -(and on the way reinforcing her Star status when compared to less acomplished performances).

Are you serious that you'd really do that? Even if so, then those devoted balletomanes who do it will still be a tiny minority. I can understand that and also those who 'want to get it as Villella' (or Balanchine or Boal or whoever] 'wants one to see it as (s)he does', and I too want to see it as these ballet artists do to a certain degree. After which, it's impossible, I want to see it just as I see it, and I don't want a further directive as to how to see it, no matter how esteemed the master: For one thing, even if you follow the master's instructions 'to a T', you still will never see what Balanchine or Villella sees, or rather you'll still see your interpretation of what he's told you to look for. That intense types like Villella want to ensure that something sacrosanct is not forgotten is admirable, but I think the pre-performance talks are a far better way of doing this than delayed casting announcements. This added excitement back in the days that Croce was talking about in the 70s and 80s, and was part of the specialness that NYCB had then.

Cristian, you go to many more ballet performances than I do, so I can see you might do this, but it seems you'd still prefer that the casts were announced. I think in 2004, when I went to a lot of NYCB perfs. one winter and spring season, I didn't think about the casts at all, and just chose rep. This was different, though, from the days of the 70s and 80s when I saw NYCB a lot too: I always wanted to know who was dancing, and the only reason I didn't in 2004, was because I hadn't been going very much and wasn't even up on who the big new talents were, so I found out about some of them that way--otoh, as soon as I saw Hubbe in 'Apollo', I never wanted to see any of the others do it, and took someone to her first ballet performance to see him in this piece, and she was knocked out by Hubbe. But I'd say that was an anomaly, and I hadn't discovered how much I prefer ABT by now (with the occasional exception: Drew recently convinced me that I should see 'Namouna', and I intend to, but if it had been at ABT, I would have seen it there; in that case, I'm not especially concerned with who's dancing, although I'd like to see Mearns as she's described her, if possible, but it's not as important as just seeing the new piece.)

It probably has to do with the company that you see (or can see) regularly. Or if you're not going to a lot of the Kirov back in 2008 here, then I chose carefully (and got Somova instead of Vishneva anyway, but that was due to injury--but even though I missed Vishneva, I still preferred that I was able to choose well in advance what I wanted).

California:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/24675/