the new new museum

is pretty nice, though very white and very boxy. the current exhibition, unmonumental, is good for the eyes–the sculptures are made of ordinary objects on a generally human scale. the pieces are pretty if you like the shapes of things or things coming apart or textures of things (of the names i did not know, i liked best the sculptures involving knitted-soft and wooly-shapes attached like lichen to wood by alexandra birken and the hanging sculpture made of kids’ rubber balls by abraham cruzvillegas, and i liked the sarah lucas pieces, though i am bored of those particular british artists.)  i am happily looking forward to the third part of the exhibition, the sound of things. and later tonight i am going to see program four of the lincoln center’s dance on camera festival.

patrick stewart as macbeth

it looks as if i am going to, sadly, miss this. i tried, but the tickets are very sold out. i guess i will have to resign myself to the memory of the vigorous portrayal by liev schreiber at shakespeare in the park.

sweeney todd

beautiful, overrich film (overglossy iamges, overbloated depp, overbreasted bonham-carter). tim burton makes a good fairytale, but i thought pan’s labyrinth(sorry for the commercial) was better. 

the sensuality of “diving bell…”

i read a review that noted it’s sensuality (probably more than one), but i found its sensuality limited to (extremely well-done) visuals. and now i am trying to remember which film did an excellent job (i can see and hear, in my mind, a scene involving hands and cloth.) stanley kubrick was excellent at creating sensation in the body (mostly repulsion) as is jane campion (am i the only one who thought in the cut was an incredibly sensory film experience?) maybe this is all just a question of taste, and i would not underestimate schnabel’s ability to create beautiful images.