SanderO

I wouldn't be worried about "sworn threats" to destroy the west from a bunch of disgruntled fanatics. That's a threat not to take seriously and go to war over.

Quite so, Sander0, and there are many who have clearly figured out how not to be worried. After all, they never carried out any of their threats. There's a Mr. Ruppert who has written up how Al Qaeda has never bombed anything, maybe his belief that Bush/Cheney oversaw the blowing up of the buildings ought to be rewarded. That way we could learn how CAPITALISM was the cause of 'so-called terrorist acts' eh?

There have been disgruntled groups since the beginning of time and they have carried out all sorts of mischief. Waging the kind of wars that the USA has done on Iraq who clearly has no involvement in 9/11 and Afghanistan which likewise did not attack the USA is a disproportional response directed at the wrong parties. One million innocent women and children have died in Iraq, and over 5,000 USA servicemen and women, 4 million Iraqis have been displaced to camps in Jordan because someone attacked the USA on 9/11. And the supposed leader of that operation is not on the FBIs most wanted list for the crime of the century. By the way the Taliban has offered to turn Bin Laden over to the USA shortly after 9/11 if the USA presented a extradition case with evidence of his complicity. The USA refused and proceeded to attack.

None of this was Obama's creation, but he needs to get the USA out of those area. And his statement today was not encouraging as far as AfPak is concerned.

Meanwhile we need to get some of our constitutional rights back including the 4th amendment.

Of course, Obama knew he was nominated and had to have contemplated that he might win and what the reaction might be. I would think he could have asked to have his name withdrawn from consideration in contemplation of the firestorm of conflicting opinions which would undoubtedly result.

Personally, Obama has a lot going for him. He's well educated, well spoken, well read and has authored a couple of books. It's refreshing to have a man of his intellect in the oval office. He made some stunning promises in his campaign which inspired so many people to come out and vote. He had an awful lot of support and a very deep hole to dig the USA out of.

Unfortunately, he has yet to make any significant contributions to world peace except removing the missles from Poland. The USA still spends $800 billion on its war machine and floods the world with weapons which are used in regional conflicts. I wouldn't be worried about "sworn threats" to destroy the west from a bunch of disgruntled fanatics. That's a threat not to take seriously and go to war over.

Obama seems to be taking advice from the same people that always seem to have access to the seat of power. That does not bode well for the significant policy change he promised. Seems like more of the status quo.

Let's wait and see what he does. It's early in his term.

It is my belief that the prize is given for tangible achievements and a record of action/effort and in this case those tangible acheivements and record is rather thin.

Of course the world is more hopeful based on his rhetoric and willingness to negotiate with counterparties. It's wrong of the committee to use this prize to influence his behavior, although it is a noble objective (pun intended).

Having received and accepted the prize should certainly temper any attempts at militarism. Yet I heard his speech this monring where he refers to the enemy of the US and its allies in Afghanistan and his determination to prevail in that conflict. Last I heard he approach to that one is a military one and not a call for negotiations.

Perhaps guilt will move him more quickly onto the true path of peace. If he needs some advice, I suggest he invites Dehli Lama for some soul searching conversation.

I forgot, they denied appropriations for an idiotic useless fighter jet which I suppose he agreed to.

No, he hadn't. Please do not suppose those things which you do not know for a certainty. An error like this weakens all your other arguments. The F-22 Raptor, basically a good fighter-bomber, was left over from R&D done during the FIRST Bush administration, and had been multiply surpassed in all parameters by the F-35 Lightning II, the concept for which, a Joint Strike Fighter, goes all the way back to the Kennedy administration.

I apologize for getting confused about weapons systems we hardly need in my opinion.

I still believe that the jury is out on Obama and his accomplishments for peace. From my perspective he is not doing much that he presumably could. I certainly wouldn't call him a warmonger.

Glen Greenwald and I agree:

"Through no fault of his own, Obama presides over a massive war-making state that spends on its military close to what the rest of the world spends combined. The U.S. accounts for almost 70% of worldwide arms sales. We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It's unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn't. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it. One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite. That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous."

Perhaps this will inspire him to move toward peace in his future actions?

I don't think he deserves a prize for peace. As far as I can tell he is mostly rhetoric. He's commander and chief of two wars of aggression / occupation at the moment and has indicated that he will not withdraw from Afghanistan. The military has begun using drones which have been associated with many civilian deaths. But it should be noted that innocent women and children are MOST of the victims of war.

We are seeing packpeddling on closing Gitmo and he refuses to release a 15 yr old (Canadian) who has been held for some 7 years in Gitmo claiming that they need time to prepare for trial. Ha?

I forgot, they denied appropriations for an idiotic useless fighter jet which I suppose he agreed to.

His rhetoric sounds good, but he simply does not walk the talk.

We are/were very hopeful based on his campaign rhetoric. But sadly he has not delivered on his promises. Same story, different actors.

It wasn't color but the odd used of color. Color can distract from form or it can amplify it.

I just came from the dress rehearsal and parts of the Millipied were nothing short of stunning with lots of dancers on the stage weaving back and forth with incredible lighting. It's perhaps difficult to read how the real deal will look from a rehearsal, but I thought the company looked great, the choreography was better than I expected.

I am baffled by modern choreography, perhaps because I want to understand what the various gestures and steps mean. They seem to be part of a language and implying at times a literal message. But the language is both individual and seems to draw upon the universal. It's more like modern non objective art as compared to classical representational art. Both honor principals of graphics, light, form, color, and so forth. Both can be visually thrilling, but in the modern work you (me) often feels I can quite be sure what the message is.

Stella Abrerra was incredible and if she is not advanced to principal in the next graduation, there is no justice in the universe. For me, she was the high point of the afternoon. The experience left me itching for some classical ballet. I am hopeful for the Spring season.

This is performance art and the only one(s) making art in a classical piece are the those involved in designing a new staging. It's much like receiving a lousy meal at a restaurant. Who do you file your complaint with, the chef or the waiter/waitress? I suspect of the performance arts pulled off their roles, and sang well, they would not be booed. But if the AD who staged the production came out after a lousy work of art he should not expect to receive love or bouquets of flowers.

I am sorry to inform Mr. Kaiser, but a large body of Opera and Ballet is very close to going to a museum to see old favorites.

But there certainly is the possibility for new and creative productions in dance, ballet and opera. Dance seems to be out front in the creating new art thingy and not all is well received either. The problems seems to invariably come when some AD decides to mess with a classic and give it a new look, usually stripping it down in the process. And to what end I might ask?

It's certainly possible to do a different staging of a classic and it's done all the time obviously as every production of Tosca is not the Met Zefferelli one. Is it? And many are classics and successful. Apparently Gelb and Bondy tried and failed. I want my money back might be appropriate.

Only a few years ago Peter Martins and NYCB tried it with R+J to less than stellar reviews. My reaction was it missed the mark, despite some excellent performances. The sets and costumes didn't work (for me).

It's not easy running a museum with live action and a pressure to be new and current.

I may have an extra pass for the Wedsnesday afternoon (1pm) ABT rehearsal. If interested PM or email me. I've offered it to an old friend but have not heard back.

Can normal people have scandals?

That was a killer review. Thanks Decoster. I felt as if I was almost there and more so, that I want to see what you saw. I'm set to see the rehearsal on Wednesday afternoon. Now, I'm doubly excited. You did it!

Woody Allen who had an affair or perhaps married his adopted daughter? I try not to pay attention to celebrity gossip, but it's pretty clear that many of these artists are rather normal and flawed human beings with oodles of cognitive dissonance racing around their craniums.

The petition signers motives were to free Roman. They decided for their own reasons that he should not face the bar of justice for whatever he may have done, that he may have already paid his due and since he was attending an industry event to honor his work it was downright sneaky to bring up such a pesky matter as an unsettled warrant for flight. What other motives could they possible have?

If he or they were interested in Justice they would ask for a speedy trial on the charge of fleeing and let the chips fall where they may, including pursuit of legal appeals.

You either show respect for the law or you spit on it, act like you are above and beyond its reach. Polanski seems to have no respect for the system of law in the USA and the petitioner signers show a similar disregard for it.

But then again, many celebrities and artists believe they breathe different air and inhabit a different place. Doors open, they don't wait on lines, or do what the little people do and that include play by the same set of rules.

If there was an error committed by the courts, Polanski should seek a correction in the appeals process, not flee to someplace where he would not be held accountable or have to prove that an injustice had been committed.

He was given the presumption of innocence, as every accused is. The burden of "proof" now rests on him and that proof needs to be delivered in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion.

The intersection of an artist's professional work / lfe and his or her private conduct cannot be ignored in many, perhaps most cases. There are some artists who try to have as little as possible exposure to their private affairs and shun all publicity expecting their work to stand on its own merits (as it should).

Yet we all know that an artist's work is often informed by his or her life experience and so there is a natural tendency to want to look at more than the work to understand it more deeply. Painters are know to even write descriptive narritives about what their work is about certainly moving away from letting the work speak for itself.

As it's pretty hard to escape the nexus of publicity / public relations and the work of an artist as they will use almost anything to draw attention to themselves and in the best of all worlds to their work / art. Many consider any publicity good for them regardless if it casts them in a negative light because it draws people to examine their work. That's creepy, but it's out there. And of course, when one accepts the notion that an artists is also a business person, getting attention means income so the private and the public work of many artists have become inseparable as one "opus". This is particularly common in pop stars who trade on celebrity.

Stepping out into the public square to present views about current affairs is often avoided because it can offend admirers of the artist's work just as it can solidify support. As a politically progressive person, I am affected in my arts consumption by the political expression of artists, that is I support what I like and don't support what I don't like. I suspect many others do the same.

We have also seen concepts such as the blue wall of silence and similar where professions show almost an official solidarity with members of their profession without respect to the facts of a case. I consider this unethical behavior whether it comes from police, lawyers, doctors, actors or any identity group. It appears that in this "free Roman" petition by actors and film people, this is exactly what is at play. And so those who live by the sword must realize that they too, can die by the sword. For whatever it's worth when artists take political positions which I don't agree with it influences me to perhaps not support their work. And why not?

As stated earlier this case is not cut and dry, but raises many troubling issues. Most who comment, including myself are not up to speed on all the facts and offer opinions based on media supplied information which they happen to consume. That's the nature of opining.

The jury is still out on this one and as we all know even juries can return the wrong verdict at times so it's unlikely that this case will ever free itself from strong opposing views about what happened and what is the appropriate resolution.

Stay tuned.

Perhaps it's a hard row to how when you have one foot planted in this row and the other in that row? If you want to redo an opera, you have to keep the music, the libretto so you can only recast the staging and that is the other row. When the libretto is built around an historical period you can't go far awar in the staging and retain much of flavor of the time. You are left with the music/singing watching something which doesn't seem to fit.

I return to the Met's Minghella Madama Butterfly which managed to work perhaps because of the minimalism of the Japanese aesthetic? I found the graphical qualities he used in the production made it even more interesting as a theater experience than the previous production they had staged.

Minimalism is a tough one because you strip away lots of fun/interesting stuff to some core message which has to carry the day. ON the other hand the roccoco approach overwhelms the senses and you can't see the tress or the forest at times because you mind jumpas back and forth from interesting details to interesting big ideas.

Success is in the right balance of big and small "ideas"/details in a production.

Just a thought.

The answer is we need ballet so I can enjoy its beauty of how the human can find aesthetics with in a rigid formal system of rules.

We don't need anything but food, water exercise and health. Everything is needn't because the human spirit likes to create something from his external and internal environment so that his mind and body can find pleasure in it.

Here is the petition and the signers.

http://www.altfg.com/blog/directors/roman-polanski-petition/

What impresses me is the absence of legal reasoning for his not answering the fact that he fled a sentence. The most appalling paragraph refers to the fact that he assumed he was in a safe country and he was arrested. Safe from what I wonder? He obviously was aware that he was on the lamb and had avoided "something" in the US justice system for years. His behavior in that sense reminds me of other crooks who escape to countries with no extradition treaties. I am surprised at some of the people who signed such a document which seems to demand his release because their club couldn't honor him. I will boycott movies with those actors in them until this matter is settled. But then again I don't bother with most Hollywood rubbish.

How sneaky of the authorities to change the extradition laws without notice to Polanski and the film academy. I would think Mr. Polanski would have his lawyers paying extra special attention to these laws and they could have kept him from entering countries which had extradition treaties.

The fact that he is a film maker, good, bad or indifferent, has no bearing in this case whatsoever.

The fact that he fled 30 years ago should have no bearing in this what so ever.

The fact that he plead to some sort of sex with a child horrible as it is has no bearing in this matter.

The issue is whether he served a sentence in full satisfaction of his crime according to the sentencing judge and if the sentencing process was flawed. The clock has been reset apparently and he is in custody for fleeing a sentence which does not help to make his case that the sentencing process was flawed.

What happened to accountability and personal responsibility?

Oh yeah, that's for the little guys who are sent to Rikers for years for some reefer.

The case raises all sorts of ethical, moral and legal issues. The underlying facts which precipitated this case which I believe Polanski plead guilty to seem troubling to me, regardless of whether the woman now in her 40s has forgiven and wants to move on. It would be pretty tough to live with vengeance for 30 years anyway. So her wanting not to revisit these events of her puberty are understandable.

The courts, the prosecutors, the judge and so forth may have erred for technical reasons. I am not a lawyer and not personally familiar with the intricacies of the case. Whether a plea bargain was struck or not, reneged on or withdrawn or not is not as important as two main points. Polanski had no business doing what he did to a child and he did not pay for his "crime" in full satisfaction of the court and fled. If he felt he was being railroaded to a long sentence he should have had his lawyer petition the court for a mistrial, re trial, filed an appeal or made some attempt to pay for his errors, whatever he pleaded guilty to. Apparently he fled and decided to carry on with his life.

Was justice served? I think not. He may not have to face a new trial on his conduct with the child, but he now is a fugitive and has spit on the court. That's bad. I believe he yet has some answering to do. I don't think the matter has been settled by the passage of time or his talent.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Here is an interesting discussion on the matter:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-iovine...p_b_307124.html

Like so many cases, this one raises many nuanced and complex issues. The solution will not satisfy all and probably satisfy no one. The facts remain:

The man engaged in rape of a 13 year old child etc.

He has plead guilty to the charges

He has not paid his debt to SOCIETY for these crimes.

There are many matters for police and the justice system which may effect more people and which are being ignored such as the Cuban terorrist Orlando Bosh who admitted to bombing a plane and is a free man in Miami. This sad fact will always be present and is not a reason to ignore this matter.

If Polanski wants to make some claim that he should not pay for his admitted crime, he will have an opportunity to do so. His work as a film maker is not an issue. There are always mitigating circumstances. Let them be aired and let the court decide. Mr Polanski has no right to decide what is right and wrong. That's what Bush did and we did not approve of it then either.

Sandy, perhaps you can provide the key facts which you feel make this not so cut and dry?

Sandy,

Either the law is respected or it means nothing and anybody feels justified in taking the law into their own hands. Lots of guilty people are not held accountable for their crimes. Nothing new about that. But we must at least try to stick to the principles. I would think if it was your child or sister who was the victim of rape you might not have the same approach. I am not for vengence, but why should someone who has admitted to his guilt not pay his debt to society. It's not as if he claimed he was innocent. He just didn't want to go to prison.

They chased Pinochet until he died an old man and good that they did and bad that he never paid his debt to the people of Argentina.

Raping a child. This is not robbing a bank, but violating an innocent child. You don't do things like that.

Since Polanski admitted guilt he should be punished for his crimes which seems pretty awful on the face. If he was guilty he should pay his debt to society. If he is not guilty he should not.

He seems to have been on the lamb avoiding arrest. What am I missing?

Michael Moore includes a shot of the inside of the Met Opera. It has come to symbolize the vulgarity of capitalism.

Thank you Mr. Gelb, you're really good at this stuff.

Seems as if whatever money touches it tarnishes irrevocably.

The Magic Flute is a perfect example of an opera which can be successfully done by many artistic directors. It's a real fairy tale so there's oodles of room for interpretation. The Met production is dazzling to the eye. Can it be topped? I'd be willing to see someone try.

Hans' point about the "flexibility" of opera compared to "classic" ballet is spot on. Blind people can enjoy an opera regardless of the staging.

However, the staging is what "supports" the libretto in an analogous was as the costumes and set support story ballet. Of course an AD may re interpret the "supporting" role,. as long as it provides support and doesn't erode the libretto.

This makes me think of West Side Story which was Romeo and Juliet completely redone. The core of the Shakespeare was there, the tragedy etc. but it was brilliantly reformatted completely by Bernstein. Messing about with the production of an opera is a much more limited and perhaps difficult row to hoe.

I've seen "scaled down" productions of Rigoletto (in Firenze) with modernist elements and it worked. So it is possible, but it requires skill and it won't float everyone's boat.